FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR
THE TAR CREEK SUPERFUND SITE
OTTAWA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
£
<
3>
V
£
PRO^^°
ro
2
LU
O
September 2015
Prepared By:
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID No. OKD980629844
Ottawa County, Oklahoma
DETERMINATION
I have determined the following:
• The remedy at Operable Unit (OIJ) 1 is protective of human health and the environment
with respect to groundwater. With respect to surface water, the remedy at OU1 does not
meet applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR), but those ARARs
have been waived under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 300.430(1 )(i)(C)(6).
• The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment
upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date at 2,940 residential
yards and at areas frequented by children (high-access areas [HAA]) have adequately
addressed in those yards and HAAs all exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks in these areas. There are approximately 19 residential yards that are
currently scheduled to be sampled to determine if remediation will be required, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that it will take one year to
complete remediation if necessary for the 19 residential yards. The Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) will continue to evaluate additional
residential properties and HAAs as they become known and assess the need for sampling
and remediation under a Cooperative Agreement.
• The remedy at OU3 is protective of human health and the environment.
• The remedy at OU4 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment
upon completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately
addressed all exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks at: the smelter
site; all rural residential yards; chat piles CP058, CP059, CP088, CP091, CP092, CP093,
CP093-S1, CP093-S2, CP093-S3, CP093-S4, CP093-S5, CP094, CP094-S1, CP097,
CP098, CP099, CP 100, CP 101, CP 102, CP 103, CP 104, and CP 105; at the following chat
bases: CB011, CB044, CB046, CB048, CB049, CB053, CB143, CB146, CB147, CB156,
CB157, CB216, CB219, CB221, CB222, CB223, CB23Q, CB231, CB232, CB233,
CB234, CB235, CB236, CB237, CB238, CB239, CB240, CB241, CB241-S1, CB241-S2,
CB242, and CB243; and the fine tailings deposit FT063. There are 83 chat piles, 213 chat
-------
bases, and 62 fine tailings deposits that still must be addressed; EPA estimates that it will
take 30 years to complete this work.
• EPA has begun the remedial investigation and feasibility study process at OU5; it has not
completed a baseline human health risk assessment or an ecological risk assessment at this
date. Consequently, no protectiveness determination can be made for OU5.
Date
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6
ii
-------
CONCURRENCES
FIFTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID# OKD980629844
By:
RoIot Sullivan^ Project Manager
Superfund Remedial Branch
&
\s\aAK
e Atkins, Cttikf
'/NM/OK Section, Superfund Remedial Branch
Date:
Date:
By:
John Meyer, As^jeiate Director
Supemmd Remedial Branch
tr
Jarrfqs E. Costcllo, Practice Group Leader
Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
Mark Peycke, Chief
Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel
By: >
i/no
Pam Phillips, Deputy j'Oirector
Superfund Division
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
f/'g7?/
9 /p-3 / /g
°t 1X51IV
iii
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CURRENT SITE ISSUES
; Issue
:
\
Rccommendatioiis/Foliow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Follow-Up Ac
Protectiver
Current
ions: Affects
ess (Y/N)
Future
ODEQ research ihas found references
to abandoned wells that need to be
assessed to determine whether these
wells should be plugged (this issue is
carried over from the fourth five-year
review). The Oil 1 record of decision
(ROD) recognized that additional
abandoned welti completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer might be identified
after completion! of the OU1 remedial
action (RA). Th| ROD stated that the
need to plug additional wells would be
evaluated as wel|s were identified. The
existence of the ivells, which were
found by ODEQfs research in
historical docurrlents, has not been
verified. Field wbrk will be necessary
to verify the existence of these wells
and determine whether they are
completed in the! Roubidoux aquifer
and in need of plugging.
ODEQ shall undertake actions to determine whether
the wells that ODEQ found in the literature actually
exist, and evaluate whether plugging these wells is
necessary. Each well location found in the literature
•should be investigated, located, assessed, and, if
necessary and technically feasible, plugged in
accordance with the OU1 ROD. Since the last five-
year review, ODEQ has plugged two wells.
ODEQ
EPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
While significant progress has been
made, and 2,940fresidential properties
have been addressed, work remains
before the OU2 RA is complete (this
issue is carried oyer from the fourth
five-year reviewj. Residential yard
remediation has teen completed in the
towns of Alton, Fairiand, Narcissa,
Peoria, Miami, Vfyandotte, Picher,
Quapaw, North fpami, Commerce and
Cardin. The EPA} continues to take
calls from Ottawa County residents for
residential yard remediation. The next
five-year review Should consider
ODEQ shall undertake remaining actions to complete
the OU2 RA. Currently, EPA operates a telephone
hotline for Ottawa County residents to request soil
sampling. The next five-year review should consider
whether OU2 can be deleted from the NPL. This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial
deletion of the site.
ODEQ
EPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
IV
-------
issue
Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Follow-Up Actions: Affects
Protcctiveness (Y/N)
Current
Future
whether 0U2 can; be deleted from the
National Priorities List (NPL). This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would
be a partial deletion of the site.
An assessment offthe surface water and
sediment data for liar Creek should be
completed to verify if a human health
or ecological threat exists (this issue is
carried over from (the fourth five-year
review). The third and fourth five-year
reviews recommekded that the current
surface water andjsediment data for
Tar Creek be evaluated to verily that
no threat to humafi health exists in Tar
Creek. (
j
j
j
The EPA should complete the evaluation of current
surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek and
other site streams to verily that no unacceptable risks
to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek and the other streams. Numerous studies of the
Tar Creek Superfund Site have been conducted over
the past decade. These studies have collected surface
water and sediment data in Tar Creek and other site
streams. EPA should perform a data gap analysis to
determine whether gathering additional surface water
and sediment data is necessary. If EPA finds that
additional surface water and sediment data are
needed, then it should collect enough additional data
to determine whether there are risks to human health
and the environment associated with exposure to
surface water and sediments in streams of the Tar
Creek Superfund Site.
EPA
EPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
The soil cover at the Hockerville
subsidence area is settling, has been
vandalized, and isj in need of repair.
The Hockerville subsidence area was
filled with construction and demolition
debris in 2012. During the site
inspection, which .{was part of this five-
year review, the soil cover was found
to have visible damage that was due to
general settling off the cap, and also
due to vandalism Sn the form of tire
tracks made by alt-terrain vehicles.
ODEQ should repair the cover at the Hockerville
subsidence area. Additional soil should be added to
repair the soil cover, and the cover grade should be
re-established. EPA cooperative agreements with
ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe include repository
operations and maintenance-
ODEQ
EPA
9/30/2017
N
N
V
-------
j Issue
Recommcndations/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Follow-Up Actions: Affects
Protectiveness (Y/N)
Current
Future
The Central Mill Repository, which
was constructed jto handle 0114-rclated
source material, requires general
maintenance. Engineering options for
preventing water! from seeps at the
Central Mill Repository from entering
Tar Creek should be evaluated.
ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe should conduct general
maintenance at the Central Mill Repository. EPA
cooperative agreements with ODEQ and the Quapaw
Tribe include repository operations and maintenance.
The Central Mill Repository has received source
material from distal properties as part of the OU4 RA
since 2010; it is at approximately 20% capacity.
ODEQ/Quapaw
Tribe
EPA
9/30/2017
N
N
ODEQ should evaluate the need to
continue the groundwater monitoring
program under state funded OU1
operations and maintenance (O&M).
EPA intends to vfork toward
completing RA activities at OU1 after
well plugging is fcomplete.
ODEQ should complete an evaluation of the need to
continue the groundwater monitoring program under
state-funded OU 1 O&M, and revise the O&M plan if
necessary.
ODEQ
ODEQ
9/30/2020
N
N
EPA has begun the OU4 soil
amendment pilotjstudies based on the
recommendationlof the September
2014 RAO report.
EPA will develop the short and long term
performance standards and metrics to measure and
determine protectiveness.
EPA
EPA
9/30/2020
N
N
1
j
i
I
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DETERMINATION . i
CONCURRENCES ill
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS CURRENT SITE ISSUES iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xi
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM xvii
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review 4
3.0 Five-Year Review Process 12
3.1 Administrative Components 12
3.2 Community Involvement.......... 12
3.3 Document Review 12
3.4 Data.Review.. 12
3.5 Site Inspections 37
3.5 Interviews... 38
4.0 Technical Assessment..... 42
4.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision
Documents? 42
4.2 Question B; Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels,
and RAOs Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection Still Valid? 48
4.3 Question C: Has any Other Information Come to Light that Could Call into
Question the Protectiveness of the Remedy? 53
4.4 Technical Assessment Summary 54
5*0 *** »»** 57
6.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions 59
7.0 Protectiveness Statement 63
8.0 Next Review 64
Appendix A: Existing Site Information 65
1.0 Site Chronology 65
2.0 Background 68
2.1 Physical Characteristics 68
2.2 Land and Resource Use 70
.3 History of Contamination 70
.4 Initial Response 72
T5-'B'asis-iforTaJkittg-Acti:0nT:77;;Tn-::;T7;7:r;7:~rrr7~~~——:r——
3.0 Remedial Actions.. 79
3.1 Remedy Selection 80
3.2 Remedy Implementation 87
vii
-------
3.3 Operation and Maintenance and Long-Term Monitoring 91
3.4 Progress Since Initiation of Remedial Action 114
3.5 Activities Conducted at the Site by Other Governmental Agencies Since the Fourth
Five-Year Review...... ..125
Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed,,,, ,,127
Appendix C: Notices to the Public of Five-Year Review 133
Appendix I); Interviews Forms 134
Appendix E: Site Inspection Checklist ,170
Appendix F; Site Inspection Photographs...................................... 185
Tables
Table 1: Actions Taken Since Fourth Five-Year Review 5
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program 15
Table 3: Metal Concentrations in Groundwater Samples Central Mill (FTQ59)/Repository
Monitor Wells 33
Table 4: Status of Institutional Controls... 46
Table 5: Issues Identified During the Fifth Five-Year Review 58
Table 6: Recommendations to Address Current Site Issues ....60
Table 7: Chronology of Site Events 65
Table 8: Annual Production Summary 78
Table 9a: Deed Notices of LICRAT Buyout..... 95
Table 9b: Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Environmental
Remediation Identified Sites List Information 111
Table 10: Childhood Blood Levels. 124
Figures
Figure 1 Tar Creek Superfund Site Boundary 3
Figure 2: Roubidoux Monitoring Well Locations ...........,.,.,.,..36
Figure 3. Distal Areas 39
Figure 4: LICRAT Buyout Areas ......85
viii
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
^g/dL micrograms per deciliter
Hg/L micrograms per liter
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARAR Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
ATSDR United States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
ATV all-terrain vehicle
BC background concentration
BERA baseline ecological risk assessment
BHHRA baseline human health risk assessment
B1A United States Bureau of Indian Affairs
BMP best management practice
CAA Clean Air Act
CDC Centers for Disease Control
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMFTP Central Mill Fine Tailings Pond
CMR Central Mill Repository
COC contaminant of concern
COPC contaminant of potential concern
CY cubic yard
CWA Clean Water Act
DOl United States Department of the Interior
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ERCS Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ESD Explanation of Significant Differences
FS feasibility study
FTPS fine tailings pilot study
HAA high-access area
HI hazard index
IAG Inter-Agency Agreement
IC institutional control
11 EC Inter-Tribal Environmental Council
KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment
LEAD Local Environmental Action Demanded
LICRAT Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust
LTM long-term monitoring
MCL maximum contaminant level
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MK Morrison Knudson Corporation
MRTPS Mayer Ranch Passive Treatment System
-MW- monitor well - - — - — -
NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
NPL National Priorities List
OAC Oklahoma Administrative Code
OCHD Ottawa County Health Department
ix
-------
O&M
operations and maintenance
OCLPP
Oklahoma Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
ODEQ
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OSDH
Oklahoma State Department of Health
OSRTI
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU
operable unit
OWQS
Oklahoma Water Quality Standard
OWRB
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
ppm
part per million
PPP
pollution prevention plan
PRP
potentially responsible parties
QAPP
quality assurance project plan
QTEO
Quapavv Tribe Environmental Office
QTO
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
QSA
Quapaw Service Authority
RA
remedial action
RAO
remedial action objective
RAR
remedial action report
RD
remedial design
RfC
reference concentration
RI
remedial investigation
RSL
Regional Screening Level
ROD
record of decision
RSKERL
Robert S, Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
RWD
Rural Water District
SARA -
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SCPTS
Southeast Commerce Passive Treatment System
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Officer
SI
site inspection
SLERA
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
SMCL
secondary maximum contaminant level
START
Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team
TBC
"To Be Considered" standards
TCAAM2
Tar Creek After Action Monitoring Part 2
TDS
total dissolved solids
TL
tolerance limit
TRA
Treece Relocation Assistance
TSMD
Tri-State Mining District
TZ
transition zone
UIC
underground injection control
USAGE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
use
United States Code
HSDA
United-States^Deparimenf-of-Agrieul-ture — — — - — - - -
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WIC
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Women, Infant, and Children Program
X
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the statutory requirements of Section 121(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) §
9621(e), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), P, L, 99-
499, and under the implementing regulatory provisions of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §
300.430(f)(4)(ii), five-year reviews are required for sites where hazardous substances remain on-
site above levels that allow for unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. In addition, United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) policy, as stated in the current five-year review
guidance, provides that five-year reviews will be conducted at sites where a pre-SARA remedial
action (RA) leaves hazardous substances on-site above concentration levels that allow for
unrestricted use and unrestricted exposure. EPA policy also provides that five-year reviews will
be conducted at pre- or post-S ARA sites where the RA, once completed, will not leave
hazardous substances on-site above concentration levels that allow for unrestricted use and
unrestricted exposure but will require more than five years to complete. Previous five-year
reviews of the site were performed as a matter of EPA policy, because the record of decision
(ROD) for Operable Unit (OU) 1 was signed prior to the enactment of SARA, and the OU2 ROD
stated that five-year reviews were not required. An Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD)
to the OU2 ROD was signed in August 2007 requiring a five-year review of the OU2 remedy;
subsequent five-year reviews of OU2 are, therefore, required by statute. The OU4 ROD was
signed in February 2008. An ESD, explaining significant changes to the OU4 ROD, was signed
in April 2010. The ESD explained that EPA was adding the residents of Treece, Kansas to the
voluntary relocation of site residents described in the ROD. The first five-year review of the
response actions for the site was completed in April 1994, the second five-year review was
completed in April 2000, the third five-year review was completed in September 2005, and the
fourth five-year review was completed in September 2010.
Pursuant to Section 121(c) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c), the fifth five-year review of the
remedy in place at the Tar Creek Superfund Site ("site") located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma,
and Treece, Kansas, was completed in September 2015. The results of the five-year review
indicate that the response actions completed to date are currently protective of human health and
the environment in the short term. Except as noted in previous five-year reviews regarding the
ineffectiveness of the OU 1 remedy designed to decrease mine water discharges to Tar Creek, the
remedial response actions that have been performed appear to be functioning as designed, and
the site has been maintained appropriately. No deficiencies were noted that impact the immediate
protectivcness of the remedy, although several issues were identified that require further action
to ensure the continued protectiveness of the remedy.
As a result of the complex nature of contamination associated with the site, remediation has been
handled through various removal response actions and RAs. Five OUs have been designated at
the site. The five OUs include: 1) OU1 (surface water/groundwater); 2) OU2 (residential
properties and high-access areas [UAA]); 3) OU3 (Eagle-Picher Office Complex - abandoned
mining chemicals); 4) OU4 (chat piles, other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste); and 5)
tK3^^s¥dimmra^ surface" water)? ™ '
During the fifth five-year review period, operation and maintenance (O&M) and groundwater
monitoring activities continued at the site. Through the RA defined by the ROD for OU 1, dikes
xi
-------
and diversion channels were constructed at three abandoned mine openings (identified as
Muncie, Big John, and Admiralty) to prevent the inflow of surface water into the abandoned
mine workings. The Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) has developed an
updated O&M plan for the Admiralty site. The O&M plan covers annual inspections of the dikes
and diversion channels, abnormal occurrence response plans, performance standards, and annual
cost estimates of O&M. The mining was conducted in the Boone aquifer, which is contaminated
with hazardous substances including lead, cadmium, and zinc. To get to the drinking water in the
Roubidoux aquifer, which underlies the Boone, wells must pass through the Boone. The lack of
integrity in the casings of certain abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer may
enable contaminants from the overlying Boone aquifer to migrate into the Roubidoux;
consequently, the OU1 ROD calls for these wells to be plugged. EPA and ODEQ are plugging
these wells to stop the migration of contamination to the Roubidoux.
The ODEQ, in cooperation with the EPA, continued to evaluate the plugging of abandoned wells
through the Roubidoux groundwater monitoring program for OU1. The Roubidoux groundwater
monitoring program was implemented to: determine whether the well plugging actions were
effective at preventing contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer, and evaluate trends in water
quality of the Roubidoux aquifer. The Roubidoux aquifer has been monitored for 21 years, and
neither the EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the site that fail to
meet the maximum contaminant levels (MCL) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
However, data show that secondary (aesthetically based) maximum contaminant levels (SMCL)
for the indicator parameters (sulfate and iron) were exceeded in four wells completed in the
Roubidoux, indicating that there may be potential mine water impacts to the Roubidoux aquifer
from the contaminated portion of the overlying Boone aquifer at these four wells (ODEQ,
2014).The drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux aquifer continues to meet the health-
based primary drinking water standards (MCLs), and it is still considered safe as a drinking
water supply.
In addition, the Mayer Ranch passive treatment system (MRPTS) has been successful in treating
mine water discharges to Tar Creek, located in southeast Commerce. The ODEQ is partnering
with the University of Oklahoma under an EPA grant to construct an additional passive treatment
system to treat mine water discharges to the Tar Creek up-gradient of the MRPTS. Treating mine
water discharge via passive treatment appears to be economically feasible. The fourth five-year
review stated that passive treatment would be evaluated to determine its effectiveness at reducing
the risks posed by mine water discharge at the site: it also stated that the fund balancing
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) waiver included in the OU1 ROD
may no longer be valid and should be reevaluated. EPA is working toward completion of the RA
for OU1. It will be appropriate for O&M to begin once the requirements of the NCP at 40 CFR
300.435(f) are met. ODEQ is evaluating options for continuing the Roubidoux groundwater
monitoring program established under the OU1 ROD.
OU2 addresses residential yard and HAA contamination. OU2 remediation has been completed
in Afton, Cardin, Commerce, Fairland, Miami, Narcissa, North Miami, Peoria, Picher, Quapaw,
and Wyandotte. OU2 was addressed through two removal response actions and a RA. Through
..^he.jemovaL«sponse^actions-and-RArGont-aminate4-soils-at-2-¥940-res-ident'k-I"prepertieS"and— —
HAAs have been remediated to the goal of 500 parts per million (ppm) for lead. The excavated
soil was disposed of at permanent on-site repositories. In addition, the Oklahoma Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP), which is carried out by the Ottawa County
Health Department in conjunction with the Oklahoma State Department of Health, has provided
-------
childhood lead poisoning prevention education through community and tribal health fairs, Head
Start and child care programs, and community organizations and events. The OU2 RA activities
and the OCLPPP have worked together to create significant reductions in blood lead levels of
children in Tar Creek and Ottawa County. In an April 2015 cooperative agreement, EPA and
DEQ agreed that DEQ would undertake the OU2 RA, as described in the OU2 ROD, at the
remaining OU2 properties. In September 2014, EPA held an OU2 milestone cleanup event,
recognizing the reduction of blood lead levels in Ottawa County children.
OU3 involved a removal response action undertaken to clean up abandoned laboratory chemicals
at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex, located in Cardin, Oklahoma. This removal resulted
in the disposal of 120 containers of laboratory chemicals. EPA determined that no further action
was necessary to address OU3.
The OU4 ROD was signed in February 2008. OU4 addresses the generally undeveloped rural
and urban areas of the site where mine and mill residues and smelter wastes have been placed,
deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be located as a result of mining, milling,
smelting, or related operations. Under the OU4 ROD, the residents of the on-site towns of
Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville were relocated because the areas have high concentrations of
source materials (that is, the mill tailings known as chat and fines). As explained in a 2010 ESD,
EPA expanded the relocation effort to include the residents of Treeee, Kansas, EPA funded the
Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust (LICRAT), through ODEQ. LICRAT
purchased the Ottawa County properties at issue, and carried out the relocation effort with
minimal EPA oversight. A similar trust, the Treece Relocation Assistance (TRA) was established
in Kansas to address the Treeee relocation. The LICRAT buyout began in 2009 and was
completed in 2011, The Treece buyout was completed in 2012. A total of 628 residences, 74
businesses, and 125 renters were relocated from the impacted areas in Picher, Cardin,
Hockerville, and Treece. The other OU4 RA activities began in 2009 and are ongoing. OU4 RA
activities include the remediation of rural residential yards not included in OU2 RA, remediation
of a former lead smelter, removal and disposal of chat piles and chat bases in distal areas, the
construction of the Central Mill Repository from a former fine tailings pond, and a fine injection
pilot study. Additionally, subsidence areas are being used as repositories for the permanent
disposal of chat. Chat sales and reuse are also part of the OU4 selected remedy and are ongoing
at the site. EPA has begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of
contaminated soils, EPA is adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in soil,
making them less bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue
excavation of contaminated transition zone (TZ) soil. It is hoped that more topsoil may be
preserved by adding phosphate-containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an
objective of the pilot study is to reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable levels while
decreasing the volume of TZ soils being excavated and disposed at the Central Mill Repository
(EPA, 2014d).
To date, as part of OI.J4, approximately 53 chat piles, chat bases, and fine tailings ponds (totaling
approximately 1.6 million tons of chat, TZ soils, and fine tailings) have been remediated and
309,787 tons of chat have been sold (section 4.1, RA Performance). OU4 RA is ongoing.
A screening-level ecological risk assessment (SLERA) has been completed at the site. The
SLERA documents that site contaminants in surface water, sediments, pore water, and soils
within riparian and aquatic habitats pose a potential risk to ecological receptors at the site. The
xiii
-------
SLERA also suggests cleanup goals for lead, cadmium, and zinc in site sediments. EPA is
presently conducting a remedial investigation (RI) for OU5. No OU5 remedy has been selected.
For the tilth five-year review, a data review, a site inspection, interviews, and technology
assessment have been performed. Based on the findings from these activities, it appears the
remedies are functioning in a manner that is consistent with the decision documents. To ensure
continued protectiveness, seven issues are identified, as described in the following paragraphs.
These are:
1. ODEQ research has found references to abandoned wells that need to be assessed to
determine whether these wells should be plugged (this issue is carried over from the
fourth five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized that additional abandoned wells
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after completion of the OU1 RA.
The ROD stated that the need to plug additional wells would be evaluated as wells were
identified. The existence of the wells, which were found by ODEQ's research in
historical documents, has not been verified. Field work will be necessary to verify the
existence of these wells and determine whether they are completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer and in need of plugging.
2. While significant progress has been made, and 2,940 residential properties have been
addressed, work remains before the OU2 RA is complete (this issue is carried over from
the fourth five-year review). Residential yard remediation has been completed in the
towns of Afton, Fairland, Narcissa. Peoria, Miami, Wyandotte, Picher, Quapaw, North
Miami, Commerce, and Cardin. The EPA continues to take calls from Ottawa County-
residents for residential yard remediation. The next five-year review should consider
whether OU2 can be deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This deletion of
OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site.
3. An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek should be completed
to verify if a human health or ecological threat exists (this issue is carried over from the
fourth five-year review). The third and fourth five-year reviews recommended that the
current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek be evaluated to verify that no
threat to human health exists in Tar Creek.
4. The soil cover at the Hockerville subsidence area is settling, has been vandalized, and is
in need of repair. The Hockerville subsidence area was filled with construction and
demolition debris in 2012. During the site inspection, which was part of this five-year
review, the soil cover was found to have visible damage resulting from general settling of
the cap, and also due to vandalism in the form of tire tracks made by all-terrain vehicles.
5. The Centra] Mill Repository, which was constructed to handle OU4-related source
material, requires general maintenance. Engineering options for preventing water from
seeps from entering Tar Creek should be evaluated.
6. ODEQ should evaluate the need to continue the groundwater monitoring program under
state-funded OU 1 O&M. EPA intends to work toward completing RA activities at OU 1
after well plugging is complete.
7. EPA has begun the OU4 soil amendment pilot studies based on the recommendation of
the September 2014 RAO report.
xiv
-------
To address the issues identified during the fifth five-year review, the following recommendations
and follow-up actions have been identified for the site.
1. ODEQ shall undertake actions to determine whether the wells that ODEQ found in the
literature actually exist, and evaluate whether plugging these wells is necessary. Each
well location that ODEQ found in the literature should be investigated, located, assessed,
and, if necessary and technically feasible, plugged in accordance with the OU1 ROD.
Since the last five-year review, ODEQ has plugged two wells.
2. ODEQ shall undertake remaining actions to complete the OU2 RA. Currently, EPA
operates a telephone hotline for Ottawa County residents to request soil sampling. The
next five-year review should consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the NPL. This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site.
3. The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for
Tar Creek and other site streams to verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and
the environment exist in Tar Creek and the other streams. Numerous studies of the Tar
Creek Superfund Site have been conducted over the past decade. These studies have
collected surface water and sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. EPA
should perform a data gap analysis to determine whether gathering additional surface
water and sediment data is necessary. If EPA finds that additional surface water and
sediment data are needed, then it should collect enough additional data to determine
whether there are risks to human health and the environment associated with exposure to
surface water and sediments in streams of the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
4. ODEQ should repair the cover at the Hockerville subsidence area. Additional soil should
be added to repair the soil cover, and the cover grade should be re-established. EPA
cooperative agreements with ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe include repository O&M.
5. ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe should conduct general maintenance at the Central Mill
Repository. EPA cooperative agreements with ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe include
repository O&M. The Central Mill Repository has received source material from distal
properties as part of the OU4 RA since 2010; it is at approximately 20 percent capacity.
6. ODEQ should complete an evaluation of the need to continue the groundwater
monitoring program under state funded OU1 O&M and revise the O&M plan if ¦
necessary.
7. EPA will develop the short and long term performance standards and metrics to measure
and determine protectiveness.
XV
-------
Government Performance and Results Act Measures Review
As part of this five-year review, the Government Performance and Results Act Measures have
also been reviewed. The measures and their status are as follows:
Environmental Indicators
Human Health: Long-term human health protection has not been achieved. Blood lead levels of
Ottawa County children have been significantly reduced from approximately 35 percent to 3.7
percent above the new CDC blood lead reference level of 5 |ig/dL,
Groundwater Migration: Groundwater migration is not under control. There is currently not
sufficient data to make a determination.
Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use
The site has not achieved Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use status.
xvi
-------
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SUMMARY FORM
xvii
-------
•s/Rec
mmendati
ion.
OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU3
issues and Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:
OU(s); OU1
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: ODEQ research has found references to abandoned wells that need to be
assessed to determine whether these wells should be plugged (this issue is carried
over from the fourth five-year review). The OUI ROD recognized that additional
abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be identified after
completion of the OU 1 RA. The ROD stated that the need to plug additional wells
would be evaluated as wells were identified. The existence of the wells, which
were found by ODEQ's research in historical documents, has not been verified.
Field work will be necessary to verify the existence of these wells and determine
whether they are completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and are in need of plugging.
Recommendation: ODEQ shall undertake actions to determine whether the
wells found in the literature actually exist, and evaluate whether plugging these
wells is necessary. Each well location found in the literature should be
investigated, located; assessed, and, if necessary and technically feasible, plugged
in accordance with the OU 1 ROD. Since the last five-year review, ODEQ has
plugged two wells.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
State
EPA
9/30/2020
xviii
-------
OU(s): OU2
Issue Category: Remedy Performance
Issue: While significant progress has been made, and 2,940 residential properties
have been addressed, work remains before the OU2 RA is complete (this issue is
carried over from the fourth five-year review). Residential yard remediation has
been completed in the towns of-Afton, Fairiand, Narcissa, Peoria, Miami,
Wyandotte, Picher, Quapaw. North Miami, Commerce, and Cardin. The EPA
continues to take calls from Ottawa County residents for residential yard
remediation. The next five-year review should consider whether 0U2 can be
deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL). This deletion of OU2 from the
NPL would be a partial deletion of the site.
Recommendation: ODEQ shall undertake remaining actions to complete the
OU2 RA. Currently, EPA operates a telephone hotline for Ottawa County
residents to request soil sampling. The next five-year review should consider
whether OU2 can be deleted from the NPL. This deletion of OU2 from the NPL
would be a partial deletion of the site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
State
EPA
9/30/2020
OU(s):
OU1/OU5
Issue Category: Changed Site Conditions
Issue: An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek
should be completed to verify if a human health or ecological threat exists (this
issue is carried over from the fourth five-year review). The third and fourth five-
year reviews recommended that the current surface water and sediment data for
Tar Creek be evaluated to verify that no threat to human health exists in Tar
Creek.
Recommendation: The EPA should complete the evaluation of current surface
water and sediment data for Tar Creek and other site streams to verify that no
unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar Creek and
the other streams. Numerous studies of the Tar Creek Superfund Site have been
conducted over the past decade. These studies have collected surface water and
sediment data in Tar Creek and other site streams. EPA should perform a data gap
analysis to determine whether gathering additional surface water and sediment
data is necessary. If EPA finds that additional surface water and sediment data are
needed, then it should collect enough additional data to determine whether there
are risks to human health and the environment associated with exposure to surface
water and sediments in streams of the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No ™
Jules— — -
-EPA -
-EPA- - -
9/30/2020 - -
xix
-------
OU(s): 0U4
Issue Category; Operations and Maintenance
issue: The soil cover at the Hockerville subsidence area is settling, has been
vandalized, and is in need of repair. The Hockerville subsidence area was filled
with construction and demolition debris in 2012. During the site inspection, which
was part of this five-year review, the soil cover was found to have visible damage
that was due to general settling of the cap, and also due to vandalism in the form
of lire tracks made by all-terrain vehicles.
Recommendation: ODEQ should repair the cover at the Hockerville
subsidence area. Additional soil should be added to repair the soil cover and the
cover grade should be re-established. EPA cooperative agreements with ODEQ
and the Quapaw Tribe include repository operations and maintenance.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
No
State
EPA
9/30/2017
OU(s): OU4
Issue Category: Operations and Maintenance
Issue; The Central Mill Repository, which was constructed to handle OU4
related source material, requires general maintenance. Engineering options for
preventing water from seeps from entering Tar Creek should be evaluated.
Recommendation: ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe should conduct general
maintenance at the Central Mill Repository. EPA cooperative agreements with
ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe include repository O&M, The Central Mill
Repository has received source material from distal properties as part of the OU4
RA since 2010; it is at approximately 20% capacity.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
Yes
State
EPA
9/30/2017
OU(s): OU1
Issue Category; Monitoring
Issue: ODEQ should evaluate the need to continue the groundwater monitoring
program under state funded OUl O&M. EPA intends to work toward completing
RA activities at OU1 after well plugging is complete.
Recommendation: ODEQ should complete an evaluation of the need to
continue the groundwater monitoring program under state-funded OU 1 O&M and
revise the O&M plan if necessary.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
No
State
State
9/30/2020
XX
-------
OU(s): OU4
Issue Category; Remedy Performance
Issue: EPA has begun the OU4 soil amendment pilot studies based on the
recommendation of the September 2014 RAO report.
Recommendation; EPA will develop short and long term performance
standards and metrics to measure and determine protectiveness.
Affect Current
Protectiveness
Affect Future
Protectiveness
Implementing
Party
Oversight
Party
Milestone Date
No
No
EPA
EPA
9/30/2020
Sitewide Protectiveness Statement
Protectiveness Determination: Addendum Due Date (if applicable):
Short-term Protective Not applicable
Protectiveness Statement:
• The remedy at OUI is protective of human health and the environment with respect to
groundwater. With respect to surface water, the remedy at OU 1 does not meet ARARs, but
those ARARs have been waived under 40 CFR § 300.430(1 )(i)(C)(6),
• The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date at residential yards and at
areas frequented by children (HAAs) have adequately addressed all exposure pathways that
could result in unacceptable risks in these areas. There are approximately 19 residential yards
that are currently scheduled to be sampled to determine if remediation will be required- EPA
estimates that it will take one year to complete remediation if necessary for the residential
yards. ODEQ will continue to evaluate additional residential properties and HAAs as they
become known, and will assess the need for sampling and remediation under a cooperative
agreement.
• The remedy at OU3 is protective of human health and the environment.
• The remedy at OU4 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all
exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks at: the smelter site, all rural
residential yards, chat piles CP058, CP059, CP088, CP091, CP092, CP093, CP093-S1,
CP093-S2, CP093-S3, CP093-S4, CP093-S5, CP094, CP094-SI, CP097, CP098, CP099,
CP 100, CP101, CP 102, CP 103, CP 104, and CP 105; at the following chat bases: CB011,
CB044, CB046, CB048, CB049, CB053, CB143, CB146, CB147, CB156, CB157, CB216,
CB219, CB221, CB222, CB223, CB230, CB231, CB232, CB233, CB234, CB235, CB236,
CB237. CB238, CB239, CB240, CB241, CB241-S1, CB241-S2, CB242, and CB243; and the
fine tailings deposit FT063, There are 83 chat piles, 213 chat bases, and 62 fine tailings
deposits that still must be addressed; EPA estimates that it will take 30 years to complete this
work.
• EPA has begun the remedial investigation and feasibility study process at OU5 and has not
completed a baseline human health risk assessment or an ecological risk assessment at this
SafeTconseqFenflyr^ ~" "
Well plugging called for in the selected OU 1 remedy addressed the primary route of potential human
exposure by protecting the Roubidoux aquifer, and, in this way, preventing the possibility that
xx i
-------
hazardous substances would be ingested in drinking water drawn from the Roubidoux. EPA/ODEQ
has plugged and abandoned 85 wells as part of the OU1 remedy. Sampling data indicate that the
Roubidoux aquifer continues to meet all health-based primary drinking water standards. Exceedances
of secondary drinking water standards for iron and sulfate at four wells have been identified.
Secondary drinking water standards are aesthetically based values. The previous five-year review
established that some of the exposure assumptions and the potential risks posed to human health and
the environment for surface water and sediments at the site that were described in the OU1 ROD are
no longer valid (EPA, 2010c). Fish tissue data collected by ODEQ demonstrate that risks to human
health exist through consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and
Grand Lake (DEQ, 2008b). Metals contained within site sediments are biologically available and pose
risks to ecological receptors (MacDonald, 2009). In Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar
Creek Site, EPA found that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in surface water samples exceed
the OWQS chronic toxicity standard; zinc concentrations also exceed the acute toxicity standard. With
the exceptions noted above for OU1, the Roubidoux groundwater monitoring program, and O&M
activities for the Tar Creek Superfund Site are all protective for the short and long term.
The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment in all areas
where remediation has been completed. Over 2,940 properties have been remediated during the OU2
RA and during the removal actions that preceded the RA. Remaining properties in need of remediation
are being evaluated. The RA for OU2 is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed by the next five-
year review. Human health and the environment are being protected by the remedy for OU2.
The action implemented during the removal action for OU3 is protective of human health and the
environment. The laboratory chemicals left at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex were removed
from the site and properly disposed.
The RA for OU4 is currently ongoing. The remedy at OU4 is expected to be protective of human
health and the environment upon completion. In the interim, exposure pathways that could result in
unacceptable risks are being controlled. The I.ICRAT voluntary relocation in Picher, Card in, and
Hockerville. Oklahoma, was completed in 2011. The voluntary relocation in Treece, Kansas, was
completed in 2012, under a Kansas trust—the Treece Relocation Assistance (TRA). Chat sales
continue at the site. Appendix H of the OWQS 785 OAC 45 was amended to limit the use of
groundwater from the Boone aquifer. RAs on three rural residential properties, a smelter site, and
multiple distal groups (which include chat piles and chat bases) have been completed. EPA has begun
a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of contaminated soils, EPA is adding soil
amendments that are high in phosphates to bind metals in soil, making them less bioavailable. This
pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue excavation of contaminated TZ soil. It is hoped
that more topsoil may be preserved by adding phosphate-containing soil amendments. In addition to
preserving topsoil, an objective of the pilot study is to reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable
levels while decreasing the volume of TZ soils being excavated and disposed at the Central Mill
Repository (EPA, 20 3 4d).
EPA is presently conducting a RI for OU 5. No OU5 remedy has been selected.
-------
Fifth Five-Year Review Report
for
Tar Creek Superfiind Site
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has conducted the fifth five-year
review of the remedial actions (RA) being implemented at the Tar Creek Superfund Site (site),
for the period between September 2010 (when the fourth five-year review was completed) to
September 2015. The purpose of a five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and
performance of a remedy in order to determine if the remedy is or will be protective of human
health and the environment. Protectiveness is generally defined in the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) by the risk range and the hazard index (HI). Evaluation of the remedy and the
determination of protectiveness should be based on and sufficiently supported by data and
observations. This fifth five-year review report documents the results of the review for the site,
conducted in accordance with the EPA guidance on five-year reviews. EPA guidance on
conducting five-year reviews is provided by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) Directive 9355.7-03B-P, Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance (EPA, 2001),
The site is primarily located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, in the far northeastern corner of the
state (see Figure 1). It consists of five Operable Units (OU): OU1 (surface water/ground water);
OU2 (residential properties and high-access areas [HAA]); OU3 (Eagle-Picher Office Complex -
abandoned mining chemicals); OU4 (chat piles, other mine and mill waste, and smelter waste);
and OU5 (sediment and surface water). As explained in an Explanation of Significant
Differences (ESD) issued by EPA in April 2010, OU4 was expanded to include Treece, Kansas.
The ESD explains that, consistent with the OU4 record of decision (ROD), EPA decided to
complete a voluntary relocation of residents in Treece, Kansas as part of the OU4 RA (EPA,
2010a).
1.0 Introduction
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
United States Code (USC) § 9601 el seq. and the NCP, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
300 et seq., call for five-year reviews of certain CERCLA RAs. The statutory requirement to
conduct a five-year review was added to CERCLA as part of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), P.L. 99-499. EPA may also conduct five-year reviews as a
matter of policy for sites not addressed specifically by the statutory requirement. EPA classifies
each five-year review as either "statutory" or "policy" depending on whether it is being required
by statute or is being conducted as a matter of policy. The fifth live-year review for the site is a
statutory review.
As specified by CERCLA and the NCP, statutory reviews are required for sites where, after RAs
are complete, hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants will remain on site at levels that
will not allow for unrestricted use or unrestricted exposure. Statutory reviews are required for
such sites if the ROD was signed on or after the effective date of SARA. CERCLA § 121(c), as
-isa^^USClTOT{c)7iites: ~ '
-------
If the President selects a remedial action that results in any hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site, the President shall review such remedial
action no less often than each five years after the initiation of such remedial action to
assure that human health and the environment are being protected by the remedial action
being implemented.
The implementing provisions of the NCP, as set forth in the CFR, state at 40 CFR §
300.43 0(f)(4)(ii):
If a remedial action is selected that results in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often than every
five years after the initiation of the selected remedial action.
Five-year reviews generally should be conducted as a matter of policy for the following types of
actions:
• A pre- or post-SARA remedial action that, upon completion, will not leave hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use
and unrestricted exposure, but requires five years or more to complete;
• A pre-SARA remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure;
or
• A removal-only site on the National Priorities List (NPL) where a removal action leaves
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure and where no remedial action has or will take
place (EPA, 2001).
This fifth five-year review for the site is required by statute. EPA signed an ESD for the OU2
ROD in August 2007 that requires a statutory five-year review of the OU2 remedy (EPA, 2007).
The OU4 ROD, signed in February 2007, explicitly states that a statutory review will be
conducted. Previous five-year reviews for the site were conducted as a matter of EPA policy
because the ROD for OU1 was signed prior to the effective date of SARA, and the original OU2
ROD stipulated that a five-year review was not required. Although RODs for OU3 and OU5
have not been completed, actions associated with OU3 and OU5 are also described in this five-
year review report as components of the site.
This is the fifth five-year review for the site. The first five-year review was completed in April
1994; the second five-year review was completed in April 2000: the third five-year review was
completed in September 2005; and the fourth five-year review was completed in September
2010. The triggering action for this statutory review is the signed date of the fourth five-year
review report, which was September 29, 2010.
2
-------
Figure 1 Tar Creek Superfund Site Boundary
> AjfvvOammerce
1i .. |
1
*
**
«£
t!
*• r".
Wte make every effort to preside and maintain
However, some data and intormaaor on this map
may be pre*minary or ou of die and it provided vxth
the wndersandr^B that t a not guaranBaed ID be
coned or cmrvUtt Conclusions drawn from, or
he basis of. such data and
e me soto responsibility ol the user
0 K I
domtmcmo
A H 0 M A
:HVKOM*BrtlU OtAimr
1
1 •'t3racji1«^ra^ '.sfesC' O-U4&J J." u:» _
-7 :: vm-M -:r i : ; - t 'd&Pift
Figure 1:
Tar Creek Superfund
Site Boundary
Map Created by Brent Stone
on 5/12/2015
3L9KB&
N
-4"
4 Miles
-------
2.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
The fourth five-year review of the site was completed in September 2010. The fourth five-year
review report concluded that the RAs implemented at the site were protective of human health
and the environment. The fourth five-year review report stated that for OU1, the Roubidoux
aquifer continued to meet all health-based primary drinking water standards and is still
considered safe for use as a drinking water supply, but noted that the data collected through the
sampling program indicated that the Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally by acid mine water
from the Boone aquifer. In addition, the report stated that wells identified as being completed
through the Boone into the Roubidoux need to be plugged. The report also said that the
operations and maintenance (O&M) plan for the diversion and diking at the Admiralty Mine Site
needed to be updated (EPA, 2010c).
For OU2, the fourth Five-Year Review Report stated that the OU2 remedy being implemented is
protective of human health and the environment in the remediated areas and this is demonstrated
by blood lead data collected from children at the site, with only 2.8 percent of children between
the ages of one and five residing at the site at that time having a blood lead level that exceeds 10
micrograms per deciliter (|ig/dL). The RA for OU2 is still in progress but in 2010 2,295
properties had been remediated, and others were still to be identified and remediated (EPA,
2010c). In addition, the report stated that final closure of the two soil repositories should be
performed in accordance with the OU2 ROD. The report also said that the institutional controls
(ICs) called for in the OU2 ROD should be filed in the property records (EPA, 2010c).
For OU4, the fourth five-year review report stated that RA activities began in 2009 and the
voluntary relocation being performed under the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation
Assistance Trust (L1CRAT) was in progress. The voluntary relocation removed most residents
from the central core of the mining area and reduced the potential for exposure to site-related
contamination. In addition, the report stated that ICs still needed to be filed. The purposes of the
ICs are to restrict use of properties where fine tailings were covered, where on-site repositories
were constructed, and where properties were acquired by LICRAT. Also, the fourth five-year
review report pointed out that the OU4 ROD required an IC to restrict future uses of groundwater
from the portion of the Boone aquifer where the mine workings were located. Under the ROD,
the IC restricting groundwater was to be implemented under the Oklahoma Water Quality
Standard (OWQS) Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix H (EPA, 2010c).
The fourth five-year review included six issues and recommendations. This report summarizes
each recommendation and its current status in Table 1.
4
-------
Table 1: Actions Taken Since Fourth Five-Year Review
Number
Issue from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Date of Action
1'
\
i
No O&M plan exists for the
dike and diversion channel for
the Admiralty Mine Site (this
issue is carried over from the
third five-year review). The
ODEQ's O&M plan for the
dike and diversion channel
constructed at the Admiralty
Mine Site as part of the OU1
remedy was written in 1987
and facts have arisen that
make it outdated. The ODEQ
is responsible for maintaining
the dike and diversion channel
at the Admiralty Mine Site, as
part of ODEQ's O&M for
OUI. The dike at the
Admiralty site requires some
maintenance to repair damage
noted during the site
inspection and mowing.
Develop an O&M Plan for the dike and
diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine
Site. The ODEQ indicated in the third
and fourth five-year reviews that the last
O&M plan developed for the diversion
dike and channel at the Admiralty Mine
Site was prepared in 1987 and new facts
may have made it outdated. The O&M
plan prepared for the Admiralty Mine
Site should be updated. Maintenance
needs to be performed to the dike at the
Admiralty site. The maintenance items
identified during the fourth five-year
review site inspection should be
performed. ODEQ should provide to
EPA a schedule that indicates when the
O&M plan will be revised and when the
necessary maintenance will be
completed. This follow-up action should
be completed no later than September
2012.
ODEQ
ODEQ developed an updated
O&M plan for the Admiralty
Mine Site. The O&M plan
covers annual inspections items,
abnormal occurrence response
plans, performance standards,
and annual cost estimates of
O&M (ODEQ, 2012a). The
annual O&M inspections have
identified minor issues that have
been rectified by the landowner.
The reports state that overall the
dike and diversion channel are
functioning as intended (ODEQ,
2015d and ODEQ, 2015c).
November 2, 2012
2 i
A determination regarding the
effectiveness of the well
plugging program, which was
intended to prevent mine
water infiltration into the
Roubidoux aquifer has not
been completed (this issue is
carried over from the third
five-year review). The
Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program has
collected data for a period of
over 20 years since the RA to
plug abandoned Roubidoux
Complete the evaluation, of the
effectiveness of the well plugging
program that is intended to prevent mine
water infiltration into the Roubidoux
aquifer. It would be beneficial to future
long-term decision making if, under the
Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program, all the analytical results
available from the Roubidoux aquifer
were compiled into a single database.
The database could then be used to
perform statistical and trend analyses on
the data to assess long-term changes to
the water quality of the Roubidoux
ODEQ
The Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program has
included annual sampling
events conducted by ODEQ
from March 2010 through
October 2013. All the analytical
results from these sampling
events and historical data
stretching back to 1997 have
been compiled into a single
table as an attachment to each
report. This table has been used
to perform limited statistical
and trend analyses on the data
December 2014
-------
Number
,
Issue from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Recommendations/Foilow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Bate of Action
|
|
wells was completed. In the
past, it was believed that the
Roubidoux aquifer was being
impacted by the mine water;
however, only certain
indicator parameters were
found, and subsequent data
collection over twenty years
has not found any more
reason to believe that the
mine water is degrading the
Roubidoux. It should be noted
that neither EPA nor ODEQ
have identified any public
drinking water wells at the
site that fail to meet the
health-based primary drinking
water standards (Maximum
Contaminant Levels [MCLJ)
established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
and the drinking water
supplied from the Roubidoux
aquifer at the site is safe for
all uses. Nonetheless, all
available information
indicates that the primary
mechanism for mine water to
enter the Roubidoux aquifer is
infiltration through unplugged
abandoned wells or
infiltration through wells that
have faulty well casings
and/or poor seals across the
Boone Formation;
consequently, it is essential
that plugging of abandoned
wells continue.
aquifer. If additional data are required to
complete the evaluation, then such data
should be collected. Recommendations
should then be developed regarding the
need for continued monitoring and/or
additional actions to protect the
Roubidoux aquifer if necessary. The
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
well plugging program should be
completed by September 2014 (prior to
the next five-year review).
for certain wells in order to
assess the long-term changes to
the water quality of those
particular Roubidoux wells.
Each report has listed
recommendations with the final
report recommending continued
monitoring of the Roubidoux
aquifer because the mine pool is
a potential source of
contamination, and because iron
and sulfate concentration trends
for the Picher wells are
increasing (ODEQ, 2014a).
-------
j
Number
i
Issue from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
RecommendaUons/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Date of Action
3 i
1
!
j
\
\
!
i
i
j
j
ODEQ research has found
references to 19 abandoned
wells that need to be assessed
for plugging (this issue is
carried over from the third
five-year review). The OU1
ROD recognized that
additional abandoned wells
completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer might be identified
after completion of the OU1
RA. The ROD stated that the
need to plug additional wells
would be evaluated as wells
were identified. The existence
of the wells found by
ODEQ's research in historical
records are found, ODEQ
should determine whether the
well is completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer, and
ODEQ should plug those
abandoned wells completed in
the Roubidoux aquifer where
it is found to be technically
feasible to do so. EPA will
assist ODEQ to plug as many
wells as can be located. This
follow-up action should be
completed by September
2012.
Undertake fieldwork to determine
whether the 19 wells that ODEQ found
in literature actually exist, and evaluate
whether plugging any wells found is
warranted or feasible. Each well
location the ODEQ found in literature
should be investigated, located,
assessed, and if necessary and
technically feasible, plugged in
accordance with the OU1 ROD. As
additional potential abandoned well
locations are found, field work should
be undertaken to locate any wells that
exist. If any wells are found, ODEQ
should determine whether the well is
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer,
and ODEQ should plug those
abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer where it is found to
be technically feasible to do so. EPA
will assist ODEQ to plug as many wells
as can be located. This follow-up action
should be completed by September
2012.
ODEQ
The ODEQ continues to
identify and plug wells. Since
the last five year review, ODEQ
has plugged two wells (Tulsa
Mine and Powerhouse). ODEQ
also identified three additional
wells, two of which were
identified through Sanborn
maps (Birthday and Vantage)
and one that was uncovered
during OU4 RA activities
(Netta-White). In addition, two
of the 19 wells are identified as
public water supplies
(Quapaw#2 and Quapaw#5) and
are part of the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring
Program. However, these two
wells show impacts from the
Boone and should be plugged at
earliest opportunity. Nine of the
17 wells are on restricted
property and EPA and ODEQ
may require assistance from
local tribal authorities to access
and evaluate the nine wells.
Eight wells are in the process of
being investigated and
evaluated for plugging (ODEQ,
2015a).
Ongoing
4 1
Remaining actions should be
taken to complete the OU2
RA. These actions include,
but may not be limited to:
I)assessment of chat in
driveways and alleyways in
areas of Ottawa County,
Remaining actions should be taken to
complete the OU2 RA. These actions
include, but may not be limited to:
1 Assessment of chat in driveways and
alleyways in areas of Ottawa County,
including Miami, that are outside of the
mining area (approximately 450 in
ODEQ
The fourth five year review
report recommended that the
remaining OU2 RA be
completed. This included the
assessment of chat in driveways
and alleyways in areas of
Ottawa County that are outside
Ongoing
7
-------
Number
Issue from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Date of Action
|
including Miami, that are
outside of the mining area
(approximately 450 in Miami
and 50 in other areas of
Ottawa County); 2)
assessment of the footprints of
homes demolished as part of
the voluntary relocation
(approximately 450
properties); 3) remediation of
residential properties located
outside of the boundary of the
OU4 voluntary buyout, where
access was previously denied,
and where soil lead
concentrations exceed the
remediation goal established
in the OU2 ROD
(approximately 140
properties). Owners of
residential properties where
access was previously denied
will be offered a final
opportunity to have their
property re-sampled and
remediated if necessary. The
next five-year review should
also consider whether OU2
can be deleted from the NPL.
This deletion of OU2 from the
NPL would be a partial
deletion of the site. This
follow-up action should be
completed by September
2015.
Miami and 50 in other areas of Ottawa
County); 2) assessment of the footprints
of homes demolished as part of the
voluntary relocation (approximately 450
properties); 3) remediation of residential
properties located outside of the
boundary of the OU4 voluntary buyout,
where access was previously denied,
and where soil lead concentrations
exceed the remediation goal established
in the OU2 ROD (approximately 140
properties). Owners of residential
properties where access was previously
denied will be offered a final
opportunity to have their property re-
sampled and remediated if necessary.
The next five-year review should also
consider whether OU2 can be deleted
from the National Priorities List (NPL).
This deletion of OU2 from the NPL
would be a partial deletion of the site.
This follow-up action should be
completed by September 2015.
of the mining area, assessment
of the footprints of homes
demolished as part of the
voluntary relocation, and
remediation of residential
properties located outside of the
boundary of the OU4 voluntary
buyout. The fourth five-year
review report also stated that the
fifth five-year review should
consider whether OU2 can be
deleted from the NPL. The RA
activities for OU2 are nearly
complete. It is estimated that
approximately 19 properties still
require sampling and removal.
In September 2014, EPA held
an OU2 Milestone Cleanup
Event recognizing reduced
blood lead in Ottawa County
Children. Remedial activities
that occurred under OU2
include the remediation of
residential yards, residential
driveways, public alleyways,
churches, city parks, schools,
and other IlAAs. ODEQ will
undertake OU2 RA activities
under a cooperative agreement
with EPA for the remaining
residential property
remediation. This will include
assessing new properties as they
arise, sampling current
properties set for remediation,
and carrying out remediation for
properties deemed appropriate.
At this time it is inappropriate
8
-------
Number
Issiie from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Recommendations/FoHow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Date of Action
\
to delete OU2 from the NPL.
However, the next five-year
review should consider whether
OU2 can be deleted from the
NPL. This deletion of OU2
from the NPL would be a partial
deletion of the site.
5 5
1
i
i
i
i
[
j
j
j
The EPA should complete the
evaluation of current surface
water and sediment data for
Tar Creek to verify that no
unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment
exist in Tar Creek. Numerous
studies have been conducted
since the third five-year
review. These studies have
collected surface water and
sediment data in Tar Creek
and other site streams. If
necessary, EPA should collect
enough additional data to
determine whether potential
risks are posed to human
health and the environment by
the surface water and
sediments in streams of the
site. The risks should be
quantified through a risk
assessment If unacceptable
risks are identified, then
potential remedial alternatives
will be evaluated to address
the identified risks. Potential
remedial alternatives may
include engineered remedies,
such as passive treatment
through constructed wetlands.
The EPA should complete the
evaluation of current surface water and
sediment data for Tax Creek to verify
that no unacceptable risks to human
health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. Numerous studies have been
conducted since the third five-year
review. These studies have collected
surface water and sediment data in Tar
Creek and other site streams. If
necessary, the EPA should collect
enough additional data to determine
whether potential risks are posed to
human health and the environment by
the surface water and sediments in
streams of the Tar Creek site. The risks
should be quantified through a risk
assessment. If unacceptable risks are
identified, then potential remedial
alternatives will be evaluated to address
the identified risks. Potential remedial
alternatives may include engineered
remedies, such as passive treatment
through constructed wetlands. A
determination may also be made that it
is still technically impractical to address
surface water and sediment through an
engineered remedy and/or that no
further action is required. The risk
assessment portion of this follow-up
action should be completed by
EPA
This task has not been
completed. However, a
Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment (SLERA) has
been completed and has
suggested preliminary
remediation goals that may be
appropriate for lead, cadmium,
and zinc in sediments
(McDonald, 2009).
Ongoing
9
-------
Number
Issue from Fourth Five-
Year Review
Fourth Five-Year Review
Recommendations/Follow~Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Action Taken
Date of Action
i
I
\
\
A determination may also be
made that it is still technically
impractical to address surface
water and sediment through
an engineered remedy and/or
that no further action is
required. The risk assessment
portion of this follow-up
action should be completed by
September 2012. If necessary,
an evaluation of remedial
alternatives should be
completed by September 2014
(prior to the next five-year
review).
September 2012. If necessary, an
evaluation of remedial alternatives
should be completed by September
2014 (prior to the next five-year
review).
i
\
The IC restricting potable and
domestic use of shallow
ground water including the
Boone aquifer as specified in
the OU4 ROD should be
implemented. The OU4 ROD
calls for ICs restricting the
use of the Boone aquifer and
also restricting the use of any
ground water that is shallower
than the Boone. Specifically,
the ROD calls for ICs
restricting the potable and
domestic use of such ground
water where concentrations of
site-related contaminants
exceed the remediation goals
established in the ROD. The
IC is to be implemented
through the OWQS (785 OAC
45 Appendix H).
The IC restricting potable and domestic
use of shallow ground water including
the Boone aquifer as specified in the
OU4 ROD should be implemented. The
OU4 ROD calls for ICs restricting the
use of the Boone aquifer and also
restricting the use of any ground water
that is shallower than the Boone.
Specifically, the ROD calls for ICs
restricting the potable and domestic use
of such ground water where
concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the remediation
goals established in the ROD.
ODEQ
The OU4 ROD called for ICs
restricting the use of the Boone
aquifer and also restricting the
use of any groundwater that is
shallower than the Boone.
Specifically, the OU4 ROD
called for ICs restricting the
potable and domestic use of
such groundwater where
concentrations of site-related
contaminants exceed the
remediation goals established in
the ROD.
September 2012
10
-------
Appendix H of the OWQS states
that toxic metals are present and
that special well construction
methods are required within the
OU4 boundary due to
contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there arc currently no
limitations placed on the use of
ground water from the Boone
aquifer (or other shallower ground
water) for potable use, including
domestic supply. ODEQ has
indicated that it will explore
placing a restriction in Appendix
H of the OWQS limiting ground
water use from the mine pool and
the Boone aquifer in the
immediate vicinity of the mine
pool for public water supply, or
domestic use. ODEQ's restriction
will include treatment
requirements to remove any lead
above the MCL of 15 jig/1. EPA
suggests that the State of
Oklahoma review this IC. This
follow-up action should be
completed by September 2011.
The IC is to be implemented
through the OWQS (785 OAC
45 Appendix H). Appendix H of
the OWQS states that toxic
metals are present and that
special well construction
methods are required within the
OU4 boundary due to
contamination in the Boone
aquifer, but there are currently
no limitations placed on the use
of ground water from the Boone
aquifer (or other shallower
ground water) for potable use,
including domestic supply. The
ODEQ has indicated that it will
explore placing a restriction in
Appendix H of the OWQS
limiting ground water use from
the mine pool and the Boone
aquifer in the immediate
vicinity of the mine pool for
public water supply, or
domestic use. ODEQ's
restriction will include
treatment requirements to
remove any lead above the
MCL of 15 micrograms per
liter. EPA suggests that the
State of Oklahoma review this
IC. This follow-up action
should be completed by
September 2011.
11
ODEQ In accordance with the OU4
ROD, ODEQ submitted a
proposal to change the
"Beneficial Use Designations
for Certain Limited Areas of
Groundwater1 (OWQS 785
Chapter 45, Appendix H). This
task was completed in
September 2012. The changes
specifically stated that special
well construction is required to
obtain water for potable use and
that groundwater testing is
required to meet potable use
standards for lead, arsenic, and
cadmium (ODEQ, 2012b).
September 2012
-------
3.0 Five-Year Review Process
This fifth five-year review for the site has been conducted in accordance with EPA's
Comprehensive Five-Year Review guidance dated June 2001 (EPA, 2001). Interviews were
conducted with relevant parties; a site inspection was conducted; and applicable data and
documentation covering the period of the review were evaluated. The activities conducted as part
of this review and specific findings are described in the following paragraphs.
3.1 Administrative Components
The five-year review for this site was initiated by EPA. The review team was led by EPA Region
6 with support provided by ODEQ. The components of the review included community
involvement, document review, data review, a site inspection, interviews, and development of this
five-year review report, as described in the following paragraphs.
3.2 Community Involvement
A public notice announcing initiation of the five-year review was published in the Miami News-
Record on December 11, 2014. Upon signature, the fifth five-year review report will be placed in
the information repositories for the site, including the Miami Public Library in Miami, and at the
EPA Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas. A notice will then be published in the Miami News
Record to summarize the findings of the review and announce the availability of the report at the
information repositories. A copy of the public notice is provided as Appendix C to this report.
3.3 Document Review
This fifth five-year review for the site included a review of relevant site documents, including
decision documents, construction and implementation reports, sampling reports, and related
monitoring data. Documents reviewed are listed in Appendix B.
3.4 Data Review
The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program continued during the five-year review period
that is the subject of this report, and sampling was conducted from March 2010 to October 2013.
Thirteen wells were used in the monitoring program, including five monitor wells (MW)
installed by ODEQ as part of the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program (Commerce #5,
Quapaw #5, Picher #5, Picher #6, and Picher #7), one municipal supply well located within the
mining area (Cardin #1), four wells located on the edge of the mining area (Commerce #4,
Ontario Smelter (a private well), Quapaw #4, and the Rural Water District #4 Well #3 [RWD4
#3]), and three wells located outside of the mining area (Miami #3 [replaced Miami #1 in
program], Miami #11, and RWD7 #2). However, the Ontario smelter (private) well ceased to be
sampled after 2012 due to access issues (ODEQ, 2014a). The locations of the wells are shown on
Figure 2.
'TKF20TU' to 2013 results from The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program are included in
Table 2. ODEQ classified wells that produce water with concentrations in excess of the tolerance
12
-------
limits for all three indicator parameters (indicator parameters are compounds that indicate
possible mine water impacts — sulfate, iron and zinc; see pertinent concentrations at the end of
this paragraph) as "impacted" by mine water, a well that produces water with concentrations in
excess of the background concentrations for all three indicator parameters and above the
tolerance limits for two of the indicator parameters as "probably impacted" by mine water, and a
well that produces water with concentrations in excess of the background concentrations for two
of the three indicator parameters and above the tolerance limits for one of the indicator
parameters as "possibly impacted" by mine water. ODEQ classified wells as "Background" if all
three indicator parameters were below background concentrations and "Non-impacted" if all
three indicator parameters were below tolerance limits but at least one parameter was above
background concentrations. The tolerance limits (TL) and background concentrations (BC) for
the indicated parameters of mine water contamination are provided. The indicator parameters are
sulfate (TL/BC = 82 milligrams per liter [mg/L] and 25 mg/L), iron (0.27 mg/L and 0.062 mg/L),
and zinc (0.043 mg/L and 0.009 mg/L) (ODEQ, 2014a).
Two wells sampled in the groundwater monitoring program can be classified as "impacted" by
mine water. The Quapaw #5 well results indicate that the average concentrations for sulfate
(420.8 mg/L), iron (3.044 mg/L), and zinc (0.143 mg/L) all exceed background concentrations
and tolerance limits. In addition, dissolved concentrations of sulfate and iron appear to be
increasing since 2000 (ODEQ, 2014a). The Ontario Smelter well sample results indicate that the
average concentrations for sulfate (97.74 mg/L), iron (0.401 mg/L) and zinc (0.249 mg/L)
exceed tolerance limits established for the Roubidoux. However, the Ontario Smelter well was
not able to be sampled in 2012 and 2013 due to access issues.
One well sampled in the groundwater monitoring program can be classified as "probably
impacted" by mine water. The Picher #6 well sampling results indicated that within the last five-
year review period the average concentrations for sulfate (198.1 mg/L) and iron (0.518 mg/L)
exceeded TLs established for the Roubidoux (ODEQ, 2014a).
Four wells sampled in the groundwater monitoring program can be classified as "possibly
impacted" by mine water. The Cardin #1, Commerce #4, Picher #5, and Picher #7 wells sample
results indicated that average concentrations for sulfate (97.69 mg/L, 135.5 mg/L, 106 mg/L, and
184.5 mg/L, respectively) all exceeded the tolerance limit established for the Roubidoux.
However, the last two rounds of sampling indicated that iron concentrations in Picher #7 had
exceeded tolerance limits. If this trend continues, Picher #7 may be downgraded to "probably
impacted" by mine water (ODEQ, 2014a).
One well sampled in the groundwater monitoring program can be classified as "not impacted" by
mine water and five wells were below background. The Commerce #5 well exceeded
background concentrations for iron and zinc. The RWD4 #3, Quapaw #4, Miami #11, Miami #3,
and RWD7 #2 all had concentrations of indicator parameters either at or below background
concentrations established for the Roubidoux (ODEQ, 2014a). No well has an average
concentration that exceeds any MCLs.
In 2009, a groundwater monitoring program was started at the future site of the Central Mill
Repository (CMR) to determine the impacts of the CMR to the perched groundwater chemistry.
13
-------
The sampling program began in 2009 (before the construction of the OMR) and concluded in
2011 (after the construction of the CMR). The program was based on three MWs (FT059-MW1,
FT059-MW2, and FT059-MW3), The three wells are completed in the shallow perched
groundwater that underlies the CMR. The three wells were sampled three times in 2009, two
times in 2010, and three times in 2011 (Table 3). In 2009, exceedances of secondary maximum
contaminant levels (SMCL) for iron and manganese were detected in all MWs, while
exceedances of MCLs for lead were detected in two MWs, and an exceedance of the MCL for
arsenic was detected in one MW, In 2010, exceedances of SMCLs for iron and manganese were
detected in all MWs, while exceedances of MCLs for lead were detected in two MWs, and an
exceedance of MCL for arsenic was detected in one MW. In 2011, exceedances of SMCLs for
iron and manganese were detected in all MWs, while exceedances of MCLs for lead and arsenic
were only detected in one MW. These data indicate that metal concentrations in the groundwater
had not increased since the construction and operation of the repository began in 2010; however,
FT059-MW1 was not sampled in 2011 (CH2M HILL, 2012c and Table 3).
14
-------
J
Table 2: Analytical Data foij Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cortd. |
Temp.
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potass jura
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field) [
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCCb
CI
$Qt
TDS
caca
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sh
As
CA
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
T!
Zn
Unit
wS/em f
aC
mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgft
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/J
mg/1
mg/1
mg/I
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/(SMCL)
i
(6.5-
8.5}
250
250
500
0.006
0,01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0,015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
5
Roub, T.L
|
$2
0.207
0,043
Roub. Back
|
25
0.062
0.009
Canlin 4*2
!
IBllil
10/30/2013
Totals
415 |
n.m
7.05
0.81
131
<10
57.5
221
191
41.4
19.7
12,1
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.153
<0.005
5.0D8
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,013
Dissolved
|
.
-
-
-
.
-
37.5
1S.3
10.9
2,4
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.155
<0.005
0.008
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
U/fi/2012
Totals
400 f
7.34
0.9
111.5
<10
59,9
214
IP
40,6
18.2
10,9
2,3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.164
<0.005
3.008
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
0,037
Dissolved
s
-
*
.
-
-
-
-
40.2
18.4
10.7
2.3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.146
<0.005
3.008
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
n/rai
Totals
457 j
20,06
7.42
1.05
132
10.7
71.9
239
180
44.4
21.6
10,7
3,5
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.104
<0.005
0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
• i
-
-
-
-
-
44.6
21.4
n
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.109
<0.005
0,01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
1I/1W2D10
Totals
6S5 j
20.39
6,08
3.57
146
29. S
176
406
297
6S.6
32.6
16,9
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.0869
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.011
Dissolved
f
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
69.5
31.9
17,5
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,077
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
3/25/2010
Totals
597 j
19.49
647
2.72
144
28.8
150
430
302
67.4
31.6
16.6
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.145
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,023
Dissolved
¦ \
-
-
»
-
-
-
-
66.4
31,2
' 15,7
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.117
<0.005
<0,0!
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.005
4/21/200S
Totals
467 1
20.85
7.2
135
126
117
78.2
242
205
46.6
21.3
11.7
2,6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.193
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,006
Dissolved
- |
-
•
.
.
.
47.4
21.8
11.5
2.5
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.169
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0,027
10/23/2007
Totals
442 j
19.05
7.33
0.9
132
11
565
216
189
40,7
18.6
10
2.3
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0,132
<0,005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.007
Dissolved
- 1
-
~
-
-
-
-
40.8
19
10
2.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.118
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
5/8/200?
Totals
m |
18.85
7,56
1.12
!2S
<10
28.3
167
157
38.7
18.4
11.1
2,1
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.0957
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
s
i
-
32.2
15.6
9.1
2,3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.076
<0.005
<0.01
4X00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
11/82006
Totals
634 |
21.79
7,2
132
160
It
15 6
375
293
64
29
15
3
<0,002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.103
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
1
-
~
.
-
-
60
28
15
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.094
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/11/2006
Totals
368 I
l
18.8
7.28
5.52
ill
13.5
7U
238
201
43
20
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.14
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
.
-
.
-
-
43
20
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.12I
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
10/17/2005
Totals
487 [
19.2
7.8
0.9
127
20.8
107
SOS
262
60
27
13
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0,17
<0.005
<0.0!
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- 1
-
-
-
-
-
69
29
13
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.0 i
0.156
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0,006
4/25/2005
Totals
510 [
18.3
7.56
1,58
m
21
in
347
260
59
27
14
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.193
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0-001
0.036
Dissolved
-
•
-
•
-
58
26
13
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.152
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
10/12/2004
Totals
m {
18.3
7.62
1.82
199
20.4
to?
333
250
59
27
14
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.139
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.009
Dissolved
- j
-
-
-
.
.
.
•
-
56
26
13
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0,01
0.114
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/27/2004
Totals
334 j
19,6
7.43
3.4S
150
14.5
93.3
m
231
50
24
12
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.132
<0.01
D.009
0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.01
0.033
Dissolved
- I
.
-
¦
¦
-
¦
-
50
24
12
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0,005
0.112
<0.0!
0.009
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,01
<0,005
11/6/2005
Totals
595 1
!
17.6
6.47
MA
145
27 J
i34
388
281
61
30
17
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0,101
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
D.022
Dissolved
-
•
-
-
.
*
-
61
30
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.O9S
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00]
<0.01
is
-------
Table 2; Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
— L
Analysis
Concl
Temp.
pH
D.O.
Aik
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hai-diness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium.
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field)
;
(Field)
(Field)
(Fie! d)
CaCO.
CI
SO»
TDS
CaCOs
Ca
Mg
Ma
K
$h
As
Cd
Cr .
Fe
Pb
Mr
Hg
Ni
Se
TS
Zn
Unit
uS/cdi
BC
mg/1
mgfl
tug/!
mg/1
nic'l
mgfl
mg/1
rog/i
mg^I
mg/1
ragft
mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
n#
mg/1
mg/i
MCi/(SMCL)
1
(8-5-
$.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0,01
0,005
0.1
0.3
0,015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
5
Roub, T.L.
I
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
25
0.062
0.009
Averages
mi
19.3
7.19
L92
14J
18
97.69
296
232
52
24
13
2.8
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.01
0.129
0.005
0,01
0.00005
0.01
0.01
0,002
0.011
'GpmnkntH \
'V;
- ¦
10/30/2013
Totals
NA |
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Dissolved
NA{
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
11/7/2012
Totals
90? j
18.61
7.04
5.5
147
59.$
206
565
388
87.5
34,3
45
3,4
<0.002
<0002
<0.002
<0-01
0.3 58
<0,005
0.016
<0.00005
<0.91
<0.01
<0.001
0.D7G2
Dissolved
„ i
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
m
343
46.1
3.4
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0-01
0.124
<0.005
0.035
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0-001
0.051
11/2/2011
Totals
19.41
7.09
3,65
169
53,4
188
504
375
79.9
35.7
34.4
3.4
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.212
<0,005
0.014
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.0303
Dissolved
t
.
-
-
-
-
-
¦
-
85.4
36
35.1
3.6
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.161
<0,005
0.014
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.0157
11/10/2010
Totals
S37f
19.8
6.54
3.87
152
78.5
190
SOS
316
74
30.3
41.6
3.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.171
<0.005
0.013
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,0101
Dissolved
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75.7
30.7
47.8
3,3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.132
<0.005
0.012
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.003
<0.01
3/24/2010
Totals
745 j
n,s5
6.76
4.97
161
54.4
192
553
354
84.2
33.1
4L2
3-6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0 384
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,0135
Dissolved
_ |
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
81.4
32.5
41
3,6
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.165
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.0071
4/22/2008
Totals
727 {
20.41
7.2
4.22
146
78,5
113
432
256
61.3
25,8
46.1
12
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.112
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.0!
<0,01
<0,001
0.0119
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
58.1
24.7
43.1
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,0942
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
wmmm
Totals
676!
18,32
7.35
2.47
13!
<10
61.9
219
186
42,9
19.1
18
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.0944
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,0268
Dissolved
.
-
-
-
-
-
•
47.1
21.2
36.5
2.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.084
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
-------
I
§
Table 2; Analytical Data hi Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cor.d.!
1
Temp.
pK
d.o.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
ThaJHum
Zinc
(FieM)j
(Fseid)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCCh
a
SO-
TBS
CaCCfe
Ca
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
T1
Zn
Unit
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
mc/l
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
msfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/(SMCL)
(6.5-
8.5)
25Q
250
590
0.006
0,01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.015
0,05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
5
Eoob. T.L.
s
§2
0.207
0.043
Roiib. Back
?
i
25
0.062
0.009
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
57
25
27
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.086
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Averages
65 S |
19,3
7.3
336
157
51.9
135.5
420
2&4
65
27
35
12
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.01
0.S23
0.005
0,011
0,00005
0.0!
0.01
0.G02
0.014
Commerce *5'
¦¦¦¦¦ :
10/30/2013
Totals
293 }
19.99
7.3
1.47
114
in
14.9
128
128
27.4
13.7
10.1
1.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.034
<0.005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
.
-
-
-
-
.
27,7
13.9
30.2
9,5
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.032
<0.005
<0.005
<0,00005
<001
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
11/7/2012
Totals
304 ]
1S.4?
7.6
1.89
106,5
15.5
15.9
145
130
27.8
13
10,7
1.8
<0_Q02
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.08
<0,005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
1
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
28
13.2
10.8
19
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.031
<0.005
<0.005
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
nmm)
Totals
m j
19,52
7.78
0.57
ID?
17.2
13.9
156
109
27,6
13.9
10
1.9
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0,036
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- !
•
-
-
.
-
28.5
14
10.6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,032
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,01
li/2/2011
Totals
308 j
19,52
7.78
0.57
1D7
17.7
14.1
m
ill
27.7
13.9
10
IS
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.042
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0-001
0.365
Dissolved
5
" i
.
-
-
-
-
.
28,5
14
10.8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,037
<0,005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,01
H/3QO910
Totals
292 j
20.05
6.12
ua
108
<10
17.5
136
119
27.6
112
§.9
1.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.047
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- |
-
-
-
*
212
13.3
8.8
1,9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.03$
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.00!
<0,01
3/24/201D
Totals
284 j
19,42
7.5
1.25
109.5
17.9
15,7
160
126
28.1
13.5
III
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.91
0.043
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
.
.
-
-
,
.
27.5
13.1
11.2
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.033
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/22/200S
Totals
279 f
20.65
7,47
1.11
109
10,5
13.7
157
127
27.1
13
8.2
i.8
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.045
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
-
27,3
13
8.1
1.8
<0,002
0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0,035
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
10/23/200?
Totals
283
18.58
7.65
0.78
109
11.4
14.2
149
129
27.9
13.4
8.3
1,9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.04
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
'
-
.
25
12.3
7.6
1.7
<0.002
0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.031
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,0076
5/8/2007
Totals
m !
20.04
7.74
1.49
103
20
12.1
155
135
27.8
13.8
11.8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.042
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
* !
-
-
27.4
118
12
2.1
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<5.01
0.031
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
A
O
O
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
11/8/2006
Totals
313 f
l
21.2
7.74
2.12
115
IS
17.4
157
129
28
33
11
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.033
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,0!
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
25
13
10
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.028
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
4/11/2006
Totals
301
19.9
£.57
1.44
107
15.3
14.6
138
124
26
13
10
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.038
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
I
-
.
•
-
-
-
-
27
13
10
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.026
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
10/18/2005
Totals
269 [
20.4
7.S1
0.1
145
10.3
13.7
173
130
29
14
8
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.043
<0.005
<0.0!
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
31
14
S
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,023
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/26/2005
Totals
26S :
18.4
SJ7
S.U
NA
<10
13.9
150
121
2§
13
8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.03
0.07
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
" :
-
.
.
-
2S
13
8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.034
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
10/12/2004
Totals
260 |
17.9
8.64
5.65
152
<10
, u
154
124
28
13
8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.092
<0.005
<0JI
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
;
-
-
-
-
28
13
S
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,Q1
<0,02
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
17
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Ccnd|
1
Temp.
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Haidiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron.
iead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Analysis
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
{Field)
CaCOj
CI
SO<
TDS
CaCOs
Ca
Mg
N&
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mrs
Hg
Ni
Se
Ti
Zn
Unit
jiS/en£
X
mg/1
nsgfl
mgfl
mgfl
mg^I
mgf
rag/1
mg/1
rag/1
mgft
mg/!
mg/1
mg/1
mg/i
mg/i
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/{SMCL)
|
(6.5-
8,5)
258
250
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.OO2
0.!
0.05
0,002
5
Roub. T.L.
s
82
0,207
0.043
Roub, Back
1
25
0.062
0.009
4mnw4
Totals
252 j
18.9
7.82
5,75
158
<10
11.8
158
122
25
13
8
2
<0,01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.093
<0.01
<0.01
0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0,005
Dissolved
_ I
(
-
.
-
-
-
•
-
25
n
8
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.034
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
4/27/2004
Totals
2521
119
7«$2
175
158
<10
11.8
!5S
123
25
B
8
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.114
<0,01
<0.01
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.0Q5
Dissolved
l
¦
*
"
¦
-
-
-
-
26
13
t
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0,039
<0.01
<0.01
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
13/6/2003
Totals
2941
117
7.29
NA
108
15.6
12
155
127
26
13
U
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0!
0.08
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.GD1
<0,01
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
13
11
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.048
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.0!
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cond. ]
I
Temp.
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride i
Sulfate
To! |
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field)]
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCOs
a
504
IDS
CaCCH
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cf
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
n
Zn
Unit
jaS/cmf
T
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/I
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mgfl
mg/l
mgfl
mg/I
mg/l
me/l
mg/l
mg/I
mg/I
mg/l
mg/l
mg/1
msf\
mg/l
MCL/fSMCl.)
l"
(6.5-
3.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0 M
0.005
0.1
0,3
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0,05
0.002
5
Remix T.L
n
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
25
0.062
0,009
Dissolved
'r
.
-
.
-
106
51
14
• 3.7
<0.002
<0.003
<0.002
<0.01
0,477
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
imam
Totals
378 j
n.%
7,3
1,06
132
<10
57,2
206
184
41 -
18
6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
035
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0.273
Dissolved
" I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
36
18
6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
Q3U
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.039
4/10/2006
Totals
239 [
m
6.69
1.43
153
<10
130
306
262
25
13
5
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0302
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
O.09
Dissolved
-
.
-
*
-
.
26
14
5
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,277
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
10/17/2005
Totals
404 [
17. 1
7.59
2.S
155
<10
125
348
274
61
29
8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0393
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.251
Dissolved
*
.
-
-
,
-
.
6%
30
8
2
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0391
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.14
4/25/2005
Totals
402 j
15.8
7,27
1.4
ISO
<10
72.5
241
199
44
21
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0-63
<0.005
0,011
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.689
Dissolved
1
¦
-
-
-
-
43
21
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.526
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<001
<0.01
<0.003
0.321
1/28/2005
Totals
756 j
j
111
7.03
2.63
NA
<10
282
648
477
49
13
HA
NA
<0.002
<0.005
0.512
<0.005
0.013
NA
HA
NA
HA
1.2
10/11/2004
Totals
445 j
15.4
7.41
2.09
m
<10
92.4
284
219
57
27
S
2
<0.002
<0-002
<0,002
<0.01
0349
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.244
Dissolved
i
\
*
-
-
.
-
-
56
26
8
2
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<001
0343
0.015
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.148
10/[ 1/2004
Totals
445 j
15.4
7.41
2.09
m
<10
115
327
248
57
2?
8
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0358
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,251
Dissolved
- |
-
-
-
-
.
~
54
25
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0318
0.021
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.169
4/29/2004
Totals
427 {
1X3
7.5
2.27
134
<10
56.3
333
185
43
22
7
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.359
<0.01
0.006
0.00006
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.299
Dissolved
- j
~
-
-
-
¦
*
2S
15
6
2
<0.01
<0,01
<0.005
<0.005
0.238
0.012
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,01
0.089
4/29/2004
Totals
427 |
17.3
7.5
2.27
134
<10
103
528
236
39
20
7
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0,005
<0,005
0359
<0.01
3,006
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,01
0.228
Dissolved
•
¦
.
-
-
28
15
6
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0,005
<0,005
0.249
<0 01
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.037
12/19/2003
Totals
415 j
14.8
6.64
NA
125
<10
§5.5
274
213
46
23
S
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0319
0.026
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,236
Dissolved
-
-
-
46
24
S
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.464
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.464
11/4/2003
Totals
252 J
17.1
7.S3
NA
115
<10
16.4
138
126
27
14
5
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
03|6
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<9.001
0.083
Dissolved
" |
•
-
-
-
27
14
5
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.246
0.013
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.07
10/6/2003
Totals
257 j
18.3
7,08
NA
130
<10
14
148
124
26
14
5
2
<0.002
<0,002
<0-002
<1.01
0.208
0.017
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
0,05
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
26
14
5
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.2SS
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.067
10/6/2003
Totals
25? |
183
7.08
NA
no
<10
16.4
132
126
26
14
5
2
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.2S7
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0,001
0.065
Dissolved
- 1
<
-
.
-
-
*
.
-
26
14
5
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0!
0.224
0.008
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
0.033
7/30/2003
DisMet
370 {
1S.2
8.19
NA
NA
n.i
126
368
NA
60
29
S
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.41
0.056
<0.01
NA
<0.01
NA
NA
0.239
Averages
460 !
m
7.19
1.61
142
10,1
97.74
293
231
47
23
g
2,4
0.003
0,003
0.O02
0,009
0.401
0,009
0.01
0.00005
0.01
0.01
0,002
0.249
Miami *fl
j
¦ : . ¦¦ ¦ ¦ .
4/27/2004
Totals
m
19.6
$21 | 33
120
78.8
12.6
265
133
29
14 j 47 j 3
<0.01
-------
Table 2; Analytical Data f
Mo
Hg
M
Se
11
Zn
Unit
ixS/gte|
X
ragf
mgR
nig/!
mgn
mg/!
mg/!
mg/l
rag/1
mg/1
mgA
mg/I
mg/1
mgfl
aig/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfi
mg/1
mg/1
mg/i
MCL/{SMCt)
!
{S.5-
8.5)
250
2 50
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
5
Roub. IX.
1
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
I
25
0.062
0.009
11/4/2003
Totals
500 j
15.7
7.15
NA
NA
S3.6
12.4
262
133
30
15
50
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0372
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.01
Dissolved
- |
.
-
-
-
-
.
-
30
15
50
3
<0.082
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.062
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
11/4/2003
Totais
500 j
15,7
7.55
SA
NA
84.5
12.5
264
135
29
14
49
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.057
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- j
-
-
-
-
30
15
50
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Averages
471
n
7.52
3.3
120
8X3
12,5
264
134
29
15
49
3
0.005
NA
0.003
0.008
0.2S1
0.007
0,01
0.00005
0.01
0.01
0.004
0.00S
: Mlami fti
¦
10/30/2013
Totals
538
19.97
7.13
1.82
I2S
84.?
12.9
254
136
29,1
14.1
65
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.065
<0.005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
29
14.5
62J
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.035
<0.005
<0,005
0.00006
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00i
<0.005
11/7/2012
Totals
546
159?
7.47
1.91
1015
90
15.8
268
136
29
13.4
57.6
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,03
<0.005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- |
•
.
2S.1
13.2
55.7
2.5
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.024
<0.005
<0.005
0,00006
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
nmzrni
Totals
546j
18,28
7.76
0.58
US
92.3
14.1
268
113
29,1
14.2
51.5
2.7
<0.002
<&0G2
<0.002
<0.01
0.077
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
Dissolved
-
-
-
.
29.3
14.2
54.2
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.084
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
11/10/2010
Totals
563 1
I
19.12
6.17
0.75
in
95
16.7
261
126
29.1
13,?
55.5
X*
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.021
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- |
*
-
-
-
30.4
33.9
56.5
2,8
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0,037
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
3/24/2010
Totals
4361
1
m
7.09
3.22
109
81
15.5
262
m
28.4
13.4
49.8
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.031
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
~ \
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
27.9
13.2
513
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.023
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
4/22/200S
Totals
537 |
20,06
7.22
0.66
107
96,9
13.7
286
337
29.5
13.8
58.1
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
1
-
-
-
-
.
29 J
13.7
56.3
1§
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0J
0,113
<0.005
<0.0i
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0 i
<0.001
<0.005
10/23/2007
Totals
533 }
16.94
7.28
1.47
114
90.4
14.1
274
138
29.9
14
52.6
2.7
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
<0,02
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
27.9
13.4
S0.6
2.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.006
5/8/2007
Totals
523 {
19,5.
735
0.49
log
$7.5
11.5
266
144
217
13.8
53.7
2,9
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
28.6
13.9
52.1
2,8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
1 J/8/2006
Totals
538}
1856
7,52
1.51
116
95.6
16.8
275
329
21
14
54
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
27
13
52
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/11/2006
Totals
547;
1
201
8.51
2.14
155
94,3
15.3
256
131
2S
14
57
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
<0.02
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0,001
<0,005
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
~
29
14
57
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.0!
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
10/18/2005
Totals
4921
(
19.3
7.7
0,7
125
92.8
m
263
m
33
14
54
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
I
.
-
-
-
-
.
31
14
55
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
10/18/2005
Totals
492!
5
19.3
7.7
0.7
125
91.6
13.7
25S
I3B
32
14
54
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
Dissolved
-
•
-
*
34
15
54
3 _
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0 01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/26/2005
Totals
527 |
18.8
7.77
1.47
NA
96.S
14
232
13}
30
14
56
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0,02
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
20
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
21
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cond
|
J
Temp,
PH
D.O.
Aik
{Field)
Chforide
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Mapeskim
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Fielcj)
(Field)
(Field)
(Fietd)
CaCCfe
CI
SO
TDS
CaC03
Ca
Mg
Ns
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
. Mo
Hg
Ni
Se
n
Zb
Unit
jiS/cm
°C
mgt
mgfl
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/i
fiig/i
mg/1
mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/i
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/(SMCL)
\
(6.5-
8.51
250
250
500
0,006
0,01
0.005
0,1
0.3
0,015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0,002
5
Roub, T.L
I
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
\
25
0.062
0.009
10/30/2013
Totals
68E1
19.24
6.72
1.83
173
25.9
169
425
328
70.6
343
21.8
3.2
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.172
<0.005
0.007
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
" I
*
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
71.1
33.6
21 &
3.4
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.137
<0.005
0.00?
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
1I/7/2012
Totals
6711
17.43
6.98
1.29
12t
26.1
160
413
301
67,7
30,6
20
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.144
<0.005
0.007
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
" i
-
-
-
-
-
.
~
65,4
29.8
19.4
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,129
<0.005
0.007
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<0,001
<0.005
11/7/2012
Totals
671J
17-43
6.9!
1.29
121
26.1
163
399
306
68.6
31.1
20.3
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.146
<0.005
0.007
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
Dissolved
- j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
625
28J
18.8
2.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,13
<0.005
0.007
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
11/1/2011
Totals
431 {
20 J 8
7.66
0.11
117
30
48.4
223
146
36.8
18.2
19.5
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0239
<0.005
0.013
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
* i
-
-
-
.
-
38
18.8
20
2.7
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.223
<0.005
0.013
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0.01
! 1/1/2011
Totals
431!
20.18
7.66
0.71
117
29.6
4U
213
146
36.9
18
19.6
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.238
<0.005
0,012
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
318
18,7
19.7
2.6
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.216
<0.005
0.013
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
11/10/2010
Totals
601f
i
19.43
5.61
1.14
128
25,7
153
362
2SS
60,1
27.6
18
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.03
0J4I
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0.01
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
617
27.9
17.8
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.102
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.00!
<0,01
ll/i0/2OK)
Totals
601 f
19.43
5.61
1.14
128
26A
155
354
260
60.8
2S.1
io
2,9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.144
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
-f
.
-
-
-
-
.
.
63.2
28.5
18.2
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.102
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
3/24/2010
Totals
412}
18.76
7.25
1.35
124
31.3
69,5
286
198
34.5
m
21,7
2,6
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.119
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- 1
.
•
-
-
•
-
.
-
33.5
16,2
22
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.096
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
3/24/2010
Totals
412]
18.76
7.25
1.35
124
31.1
72.3
287
198
35
17
21.S
2.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.112
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
33
15.9
22.3
2.6
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.09
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0,001
<0.005
4/22/2003
Totals
6041
21.67
7.26
235
115
26
I3§
383
264
59.5
27.5
17
2.8
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.113
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
1
-
-
-
-
•
-
59.6
27,8
16.8
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,11
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
10/23/2007
Totals
6051
19.25
7.17
2.5
137
30
119
332
265
57.4
26.5
17.9
2.9
<0-002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.118
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
Dissolved
. f
-
-
•
-
-
-
58.2
27,3
17.5
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,115
<0.005
<0.01
<0,0QQ0S
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,042
10/23/200?
Totals
605f
19.25
7.17
2.5
137
28.9
122
356
26S
57.9
26.8
17.6
2.9
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.118
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
-
-
¦
-
-
.
-
-
53,2
25
16.4
16
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.101
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.51
<0.001
<0.005
5/8/2007
Totals
m j
20.05
7.59
1.56
119
38,9
57,2
256
194
40.9
20,1
25.8
2.8
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.116
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
I
-
-
-
-
-
*
-
-
37,4
18.7
23.5
2.9
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.11
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
11/8/2006
Totals
635 j
21.46
7.23
0.88
139
27.4
141
373
282
64
28
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,118
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
Dissolved
- |
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
58
27
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.108
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00015
<0.01
<0.0}
<0.001
<0.005
4/11/2006
Totals
4831
23.9
8.51
2.68
157
34.4
68.3
243
m
39
19
21
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.629
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
j
-
-
-
-
.
.
-
41
20
21
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
a 112
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
4/11/2006
Totals
23.9
8.51
" 2.68
157
34.4
69.8
245
189
40
20
21
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,227
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00i
<0.005
22
-------
I
*
j
f
Table 2: Analytical Data M Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
hL
Analysis
Cor& |
1
i
Temp,
pH
D.O.
Alk
{Field}
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Di$
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Aisenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field) j
(Field)
(F)eld)
(Field)
CaCCte
CI
S04
TDS
CaCGj
a
Mg
Na
K
$b
As
€d
tr
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
Tl
Zn
Unit
jiS/cm |
aC
mg'l
me/1
TTlg/1
mg/I
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
rag/1
rng/i
mgfl
mg/?
mgft
mg/1
fflg/l
mg/1
maA
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCi/fSMCt)
f
(6.5-
S.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
O.05
O.0O2
5
Roub.T.L.
l
\
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
\
25
0.062
0.00s-
Dissolved
- f
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
*
42
20
21
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.1
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
I0/I7/2005
Totals
544 I
21.8
7.31
0,3
124
27,1
119
332
264
60
27
IB
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.098
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
71
30
IS
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,046
<0.005
<0,01
0,00015
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
10/17/2005
Totals
544 |
in
7.S1
0.3
124
28.3
US
307
365
61
27
18
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,107
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0.005
Dissolved
" j
.
-
-
¦
.
-
.
-
73
30
IS
3
<0.002
<0.002
<9.002
<0.01
0.043
<0.005
<0.01
0.0001
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.009
4/25/2005
Totals
5S1 i
lt.5
7.56
2.91
132
25.4
132
373
273
61
28
17
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.093
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- 1
-
-
-
-
-
62
2S
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.061
<0.005
<0,01
o.ooon
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
to/mm
Totals
569 \
:
I S3
7.68
233
122
26.4
140
398
279
63
29
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.171
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
1
-
-
-
-
-
¦
62
2S
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,151
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
4/27/2004
Totals
536 1
20.7
7.33
3J9
142
28.3
m
384
253
55
26
19
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0,005
<0.005
0.433
<0.01
0.007
0.00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<1.01
<0.005
Dissolved
* !
-
-
-
-
55
27
18
3
<0,01
<0,01
<0.005
<0.005
039
<0-01
0,007
0.00008
<0,01
<0,01
<0.01
<0.005
11/5/2003
Totals
590 f
14
6.52
NA
NA
25,6
135
381
278
61
29
n
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0232
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
. |
•
-
-
-
-
59
28
is
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.213
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<0.001
<0.01
4/18/2002
Totals
591 \
19,9
7,1!
NA
136
25
m
377
271
62
29
17
3
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0332
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<1.001
<0,01
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
62
29
17
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0323
<0,005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.01
12/13/2001
Totals
527 j
15.4
7.21
NA
35.6
94.S
429
216
49
24
23
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
054
<0.005
<0,01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
Dissolved.
!
-
-
.
-
49
24
23
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0393
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.014
3/9/20O1
Totals
580 j
Ill
7.22
NA
24.3
119
375
266
58
28
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.173
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- j
.
.
~
-
.
57
2S
1?
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.156
<0,005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
10/U/2000
Totals
571 j
20,2
7.15
NA
24.3
101
366
2S0
55
27
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.21S
<0.005
<0.0!
<0.0005
<0.01
<0,0!
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
-
.
-
-
-
56
27
17
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.206
<0.005
<0.01
<0,0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
2/25/2000
Totals
621 }
20.2
7.07
NA
130
30
129
379
2S4
60
28
19
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.223
<0,005
"NA
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
. |
-
-
-
.
59
2S
IS
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0!
0.216
<0,005
¦HA
<0.0005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.01
8/12/1999
Totals
550 f
23
7.45
1.95
140
23.9
IIS
106
2m
62
28
19
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0J69
<0.005
HA
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- j
•
.
»
-
¦
-
¦
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
7/22/1999
Totals
490 |
19.5
7.05
1,39
135
24.5
120
370
262
64
29
22
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.146
<0.005
NA
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
t
-
•
-
-
64
29
21
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.116
<0.005
NA
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
3/25/1999
Totals
440 !
15
7.04
5.64
130
30.4
107
342
292
55
26
19
2.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.21
<0.005
NA
<0,0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
f
-
-
-
-
-
. -
55
25
18
2.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0,01
<0.005
HA
<0,0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
-------
1
I
!
i
i
i
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidotix Groundwater Monitoring Program
1
Analysis
Corti
1
1
Temp.
pH
D.O-
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Ftekj)
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CiCOi
CI
$04
TDS
CaCG)
Ga
Ms
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
T1
Zr
Unit
|lS/crf!
•c
Hlg/1
rag/1
fflg/1
ms/I
SHg/1
rag/1
mssfl
tngA
nsg/l
mg/1
fflg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rag/I
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
MCL/(SMCl)
i
(6,5-
8,5)
250
250
500
0,00$
0.01
0.005
ai
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0.002
5
Roub. T.L.
1
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
{
25
0.062
0.009
8/25/1998
Totals
480 j
21
7.06
NA
NA
37.1
60
345
236
55
25
19
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
0.03
0.122
<0.005
NA
<0.0005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
- !
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
55
25
19
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.069
<0.005
NA
<0,0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,00!
<0.01
7/31/1998
Totals
485!
\
21
7,07
NA
NA
31.7
38,
352
260
57
27
19
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
o.os
<0.005
HA
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
' I
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
.
57
2?
17
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.064
<0.005
NA
<0.0005
<0.0!
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
3120/1998
Totals
3251
j
17
7,06
NA
NA
59,7
29.9
42
180
39
IS
19
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.096
<0.005
NA
<0.0005
<0.025
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
38
17
18
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.058
<0,005
NA
<0.0005
<0.025
<0.01
<0,001
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data tot Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cond. I
!
!
Temp,
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Th allium
Zinc
(Field)!
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCCh
a
SO*
IDS
CaCth
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mn.
Hg
Ni
Se
II
Zs
Unit
|iS/cm |
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
naga
mg/1
ma/1
Rig/I
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
tng/\
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ragfl
mg/1
MCL/(SMCl)
1
(6.5-
U)
250
250
500
0,006
0.01
0.005
0.1
03
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0,05
0.002
5
Roub. T.L.
!
S2
0.20?
0.043
Roub, Back
*
25
0.062
0,009
Dissolved
.
.
•
-
.
.
68.6
32.9
14
24
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0339
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00095
<0,01
<0.01
<0.991
0.007
4/21/2008
Totals
662 j
21.89
7.1
4.24
136
<10
m
397
313
70,9
33.5
14.S
2.4
<0.092
<0,002
<0,002
<0,01
0379
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.003
0.009
Dissolved
s
f
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
70,3
33.4
14,3
2.4
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0355
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.007
10/22/2007
Totals
619 1
i
16.4
7.25
4.05
143
10.2
171
387
312
68.9
319
13.5
2.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0351
<0.005
<9.91
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.091
0,008
Dissolved
|
-
-
.
.
.
-
66.7
31J
13.5
2,3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,275
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.991
0.009
10/22/2007
Totals
619 |
16.4
7,25
4.05
143
10.2
170
406
310
68.4
31.9
13.4
2.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.35
<0.005
<0.0!
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,014
Dissolved
1
1
-
-
.
-
-
.
-
66,5
31.5 •
13.4
2.3
<0.092
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.259
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0.011
5/7/200?
Totals
616 1
i
20,06
7,22
1.97
138
<10
177
375
286
63,6
30.8
13,7
2,4
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01 .
9325
<0.005
<0.0!
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
63,?
30.8
14
2.4
<0.092
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0302
<0,005
<9.91
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.901
<0,005
5/7/2007
Totals
616 j
20.06
7,22
1.97
138
<10
175
m
290
64
30.9
13,6
2.3
<0.092
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0327
<0.005
<9,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,0!
<0J0t
<0.005
Dissolved
|
.
.
-
-
.
63.4
30.4
13.8
2,3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0307
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
11/7/2006
Totals
602 {
21,4
6.94
4.17
141
<10
144
339
273
56
27
12
2
<0.992
<0.002
<3,002
<0,0!
0302
<0,005
<9.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
0.00S
Dissolved
|
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
55
27
12
2
<0.902
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.274
<0,005
<0.01
0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
O.00S
4/10/2006
Totals
511 |
20.3
S.ll
162
134
10
142
315
258
56
26
13
2
<0.992
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0309
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
i
-
•
-
.
-
-
-
59
27
13
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.284
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,0]
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
4/J0/2006
Totals
511 j
20.3
S.ll
2.62
134
10
143
m
258
54
25
13
2
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0301
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
i
-
57
26
13
2
<0.092
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.222
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
10/27/2005
Totals
453 1
17.8
7.73
3.79
125
10
125
313
249
58
26
12
2
<0.002
0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.296
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
.
-
59
26
12
2
<0.002
0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.23S
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0,001
<0,005
10/27/2005
Totals
m j
171
7.73
3.79
125
10
125
307
253
63
27
12
2
<0.002
9,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.298
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.006
Dissolved
. i
i
-
-
~
-
.
.
-
59
26
12
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,282
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.006
4,*25/2005
Totals
510 j
\U
7,77
3.24
NA
<10
125
333
251
60
26
12
2
<0.002
0,002
<0,002
<0.0}
0345
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<9.01
<0,01
<0.001
0,006
Dissolved
, j
-
-
*
-
-
-
¦
5$
26
12
2
<0,002
0.002
<0.002
<0.0i
0341
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<001
<0,01
<0.001
0.007
4/25/2005
Totals
510 \
n.s
1,11
3.24
NA
<10
126
336
251
6i
26
12
2
<0.002
0,002
<0.{H)2
<9.01
0338
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0.006
Dissolved
•
-
-
-
.
-
-
56
25
12
2
<0.002
0.002
<0,002
<0.01
6331
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data fdjr Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
i
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data foJ- Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cond.
Temp,
pH
0.0.
Alk
(field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCO:-
Ci
SO*
IDS
CaCO?
Ca
Ms
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
n
Zn
Unit
jiS/cm
X
mg/I
mg/I
JTig/1
rag/1
rag/I
mg/i
mg/I
rog/1
rog/1
mg/I
mg/f
mg/f
mg/1
rag/1
mg/i
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgrt
mg/i
MCU(SMCL)
<6.5-
Si)
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0,015
O.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0,002
5
Roub. T.L.
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
25
0.062
0.009
Dissolved
- \
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
31
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.902
<0.01
0.113
<0.005
0.006
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
mimm
Totals
482 j
19.6
8.2
1.43
117
17.5
103
257
215
44
23
13
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.0!
0,079
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
" 1
-
-
-
.
47
23
13
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,065
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
mi am
Totals
52? |
20,4
7,82
0.2
179
11.4
137
326
2S0
62
30
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.064
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
Dissolved
" i
<
-
.
-
¦
¦
-
72
32
11
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.062
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/25/2005
Totals
524 !
m
7,71
1.87
174
10.1
125
341
261
59
2$
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.09
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
Dissolved
" I
-
-
-
-
-
*
56
25
11
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,09
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
wnmm
Totals
4S3 j
17.9
7.83
1.31
129
13.5
112
306
244
54
26
12
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,127
<0.005
<0,01
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
-
.
-
-
-
-
55
27
12
3
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.121
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
4/27/2004
Totals
480 !
20.2
7.5
4.35
105
12,6
112
335
237
51
26
12
3
<0,01
<0,01
<0.005
<0,005
0.078
<0,01
0.005
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- )
-
-
-
-
•
-
49
26
12
3
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.072
<0.01
<0.005
0.0O005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
31/5/2003
Totals
563 |
{
14.7
619
NA
NA
<10
141
m
284
60
31
12
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.166
<0.005
^0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,01
Dissolved
i
.
-
.
•
.
59
31
12
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,16
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
mam
Totals
525 1
20,2
7.38
NA
95
14.1
U2
332
255
54
27
13
3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.092
<0.005
<0,01
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
" f
-
-
-
-
-
-
53
27
13
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.0!
0.073
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,0!
12/13/2001
Totals
455 j
163
7.6
NA
98
18
93.3
241
211
45
23
14
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,063
<0.005
<0,01
<0.0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
. i
i
*
-
-
-
"
.
45
23
13
3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.049
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.01
3/9/200?
Totals
546 ]
17-7
7-48
NA
115
14.6
121
351
257
55
28
13
2
<0,002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.173
<0.005
<0,01
<0,0005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
i
.
-
-
54
28
13
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.16
<0.005
<0.01
<0.0005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
36
70
35
13
0.002
0.002
0.002
O.Qf
0.163
0.005
0.011
0.00014
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.007
QimM* *4
V V
¦ {
. •;
mimn
Totals
295 j
19,12
7.09
1.49
117
11.6
14.3
129
126
26.4
14.2
7.8
1.5
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.025
<0.005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- j
.
-
-
-
¦
-
22.9
11.9
7.7
1.4
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.02
<0.005
<0,005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
il/S/2012
Totals
284 ]
18.23
7.34
0.5S
101
10.8
15.5
144
128
26.5
13.2
6.!
1.3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.031
<0,005
<0,005
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0.007
Dissolved
t
-
¦
-
~
-
-
-
25.7
12.9
5.8
1.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.036
<0.005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0,005
nmrni
Totals
284 I
18.23
7.34
0.58
101
10.8
15,7
134
127
26.3
13
6
1,3
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.032
<0.005
<0,005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.006
Dissolved
- 1
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
25
12.6
5,6
1.2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.026
<0,005
<0.005
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
11/3/2011
Totals
m ]
113
7.72
0,8
110
17.6
14.3
128
104
26.4
13.6
6,3
1.4
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.026
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
-
•
-
-
-
-
~
26.3
13.8
6,9
1,4
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,034
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.01
2?
-------
I
Table 2: Analytical Data f<[r Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Condi
i
T'jrrvp.
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iran
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Fidcf
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CaCQj
CI
SOi
IDS
CaCOj
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
Fs
P b
. Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
H
Zn
Unit
jLtS/esi
X
mg/1
ngl
mg/1
uig/l
rag/1
mg/1
agfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgti
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mga
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
MCL/fSMCL)
i
{6.5-
8.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
0,005
0.1
0,3
0.015
0,05
0.002
0,1
0,05
0.002
5
Roub. T.L.
i
82
0.207
0.043
Roub. Back
|
25
0.062
0.009
11/11/2010
Totals
263 j
17.89
5.73
0.48
NA
<10
15.7
142
117
26.2
13,2
5.3
13
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
" \
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
26
13
5.1
1.3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.0!
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0,001
<0.01
11/11/2010
Totals
2631
57.89
5.73
0.48
NA
<10
15.2
141
116
25.8
13.1
5,2
1.3
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00905
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26
13
5.1
1.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0,02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
0,019
<0.001
<0.01
3/25/2010
Totals
22Sj
17.16
6.97
0.86
105
<10
14.7
141
121
26.4
13,2
7.2
1.5
<0,002
<0.002
<0,002
<3.01
0.026
<0,005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.03!
Dissolved
„ i
i
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
25.8
12.9
7.6
1.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,021
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
3/25/2010
Totals
22S j
17.16
6.97
0.86
105
<10
•4.8
142
119
26,7
13,3
7.1
15
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<5,01
0.022
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.012
Dissolved
" !
-
-
-
-
-
-
¦
25.9
13,2
7,4
1.5
<0,002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
<0.02
<0,005
<3.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0,005
4/22/2G0S
Totals
263 f
20.35
7.54
1.35
102
<10
13.2
144
123
26.4
13,4
5.6
1.4
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
-------
Table 2; Analytical Data fof Tar CreekRoubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
!
Analysis
Cond. [
s
Temp,
pH
P.O.
Aik
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Fseid)l
(Field)
(Field)
CFidd)
CaCOs
CI
SO*
TDS
CaCOs
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sb
As "
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mis
Hs
Ni
Se
71
Zn
Unit
pS/cm!
°C
rag/1
nig/1
mgrt
mg/1
mg/1
mg/I
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rog/l
mgl
rag/1
mgfl
mg/1
"i g/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
M€l/{SMCi)
i
I
{6.5-
8.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0.015
0.05
0,002
0,i
0.05
0,002
5
Roub. T.L
n
0.20?
0.043
Roub. Sack
|
25
0.062
0.009
Dissolved
i
!
-
¦
-
"
¦
25
13
5
1
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0,005
<0.0!
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
Averages
264 j
18.2
7.31
1.11
no
11.6
14.25
142
123
26
13
1
1
0.002
0.0O2
0.002
0.01
0,022
0,005
0,009
0,00005
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.009
10/31/2013
Totals
1627 |
18,94
6.42
1.79
308
96.5
467
1120
822
185
83.6
65.3
8,2
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0,01
4,02
<0.005
0,052
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.03
<0,001
0,186
Dissolved
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15S
78.1
64.3
8.6
<0.002
0.006
<0.002
<0.01
3.83
<0.005
0.05
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.168
10/31/2013
Totals
1643 j
mi
6,46
1.23
2S2
95,5
470
1110
824
18?
S3.8
66.2
8.4
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0.01
4.05
<0.005
0.052
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0.187
Dissolved
5
-
-
.
-
164
81.3
66,5
8.7
<0.002
0.006
<0.002
<0.01
3.96
<0,005
0.052
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.175
11/8/2012
Totals
1694;
19,65
6.49
L29
256
98.6
552
1170
842
no
80.8
65.1
8.6
<0,002
0.008
<0.002
<0.01
4.75
<0.005
0,067
<0,00005
0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.21
Dissolved
. |
-
-
-
-
-
-
172
81,8
64.4
8.6
<0.002
0,006
<0,002
<0,01
4.6
<0.005
0.066
<0.00005
0.011
<0.01
<0,001
0.2
mmn
Totals
1599 l
ISM
6.76
1.29
294
104
514
1130
684
161
80.8
55.6
9.1
<0.002
0.008
<0.002
<0.01
3J4
<0.005
0.052
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.135
Dissolved
1
-
-
-
.
-
"
172
82.5
56.8
9.4
<0.002
0.006
<0,002
<0.01
336
<0.005
0.055
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
0.139
ll/li/2010
Totals
15321
1193
6.13
3.53
NA
97.2
544
1110
70S
166
76.2
57,1
8.8
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
3.01
<0.005
0,037
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.123
Dissolved
?
1
.
•
-
-
-
-
-
168
75.4
55.9
8.8
<0.002
0.007
<0.002
<0.01
3
<0.005
0,036
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0]
<0-001
0,128
3/25/2010
Totals
12271
14.95
09
3,28
260
94.4
465
nio
732
162
71.4
54.1
9.1
<0.002
0.004
<0.002
<0.01
3.14
<0.005
0,028
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,132
Dissolved
- i
I
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
160
71.6
54.7
<0.002
0.003
<0.002
<0.01
2.8
<0.005
0.023
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.122
4/23/2008
Totals
149? 1
21J 5
6,5
! 8
265
99,1
456
lose
go?
158
74,2
56.9
8.4
<0.002
0.004
<0,002
<0.01
2.S8
<0.005
0.026
<0,00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.135
Dissolved
- {
¦
*
•
«
.
-
156
714
54,8
83
<0.002
0.006
<0,002
<0.01
2,77
<0.005
0.056
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.126
4/23/2008
Totals
1497 ]
21,15
¦6.5
1.8
265
98.5
464
trn
SOS
161
75.9
57.5
S.4
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0.01
2.92
<0.005
0.03 i
<0.00305
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
0.138
Dissolved
- !
-
-
-
-
-
-
158
73.2
54,9
8,3
<0,002
0.006
<0.002
<0.01
2.79
<0.005
0,034
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
0.129
10/24/200?
Totals
1503]
1123
5.8
5,94
279
95,4
429
1040
703
158
73.5
53
8.3
<0,002
0.005
<0.002
<0,01
2.7?
<0.005
0.033
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
0.13
Dissolved
. 1
-
¦
-
-
"
-
144
67i
48.1
7.4
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0.01
2.42
<0.005
0.032
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,00!
0.126
10/24/2007
Totals
1503}
17.23
6.8
5.94
279
95.4
459
1020
707
160
711
53.2
8,4
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0.01
181
<0.005
0.034
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
0.132
Dissolved
- f
¦
-
-
-
•
-
-
142
66.6
48.9
7.4
<0.002
0.004
<0.002
<0.01
2.33
<0.005
0.03
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0-00!
0.116
5/9/2007
Totals
14771
20.6
6.7
L46
264
92.9
264
1000
716
154
75
54.2
8,6
<0-002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
2.62
<0,005
0.026
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
0.121
Dissolved
- |
.
•
-
*
*
154
74
53.5
S.4
<0.002
0,004
<0.002
<0,01
2.45
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.03
<0,00!
0,114
n/9/2006
Totals
14461
39.93
6.78
1.39
272
95.4
391
968
709
156
69
50
8
<0.002
0.004
<0.002
<0.01
2.48
<0.005
0.035
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
0,113
Dissolved
~ i
-
-
-
-
-
143
69
49
S
<0.002
0,004
<0.002
<0.01
142
<0.005
0,035
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0J1
4/12/2006
Toials
14971
i
20.3
7.7
1.39
244
93.6
434
992
767
151
69
54
8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
2,62
<0.005
0.027
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
0,118
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
.
-
.
•
.
150
68
53
8
<0.002
0.005
<0.002
<0,01
2.57
<0.005
0.037
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.112
4/12/2006
Totals
14911
20.3
7.7
1.29
244
93,8
422
993
764
150
69
54
8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
2.61
<0.005
0.026
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0,119
Dissolved
. i
?
¦
-
-
.
-
.
-
14?
67
53
8
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
2.53
<0.005
0.037
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
O.H
29
-------
!
Table 2: Analytical Data fir Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Cosd 1
1
!
Temp,
pH
D.O.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate j
Tot
Dis
So!
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium 1
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iran
Lead
Manganese
Mercufy
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field)l
(Field)
(Field)
(Field)
CiCOl
CI
SOa
IDS
CaCCh
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Sb
As
Cd
Cr
fe
Pb
Mn
Hg
Ni
Se
Tt
Z&
Umi
p$km j
X
mgl
mg/1
TTSg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mgfl
TTlg/1
rag.1
rng/l
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
rog/1
mg/1
mgfl
mgfl
mg/1
mgfl
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/(SMCL)
1
(6.5-
8,5}
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
QMS
0.1
0.3
0.015
0.05
0.002
0.1
0.05
0,002
5
Roub. T.L.
1
82
0.207
0,043
Roub. Back
!
i
25
0,062
0.009
Dissolved
" j
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
27.2
15
7.3
1.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/23/200S
Totals
29?
21,47
7.05
0.98
107
3SJ
<10
157
135
281
15.3
6.9
1.6
<0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.039
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26.8
14.7
6.6
1.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.033
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
10/24/2007
Totals
295
18,31
7.58
0.55
113
17,7
<10
141
137
27,1
15.1
1.6
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.026
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
.
-
-
-
-
-
24J
13.6
6
13
<0.002
<9.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,005
5/9/2007
Totals
29S
19.75
7.52
0.93
125
17.*
<10
151
141
26.B
15.1
7.2
1.5
<0.002
<1.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.024
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- |
.
-
-
-
.
-
¦
26.6
15 .
7.1
1.6
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0,021
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
5/9/3007
Totals
298 j
19.75
7.52
0.93
125
17.7
<10
147
143
26.5
15
7
1.5
<0.002
<0,092
<0.002
<0.01
0.022
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- !
-
-
-
*
-
-
-
26.6
15
7.1
1.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
11/9/2006
Totals
299 j
202%
7.69
1.25
116
18.1
11
160
135
27
15
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.025
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,005
Dissolved
j
.
-
-
-
-
-
26
IS
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.022
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.0 i
<0.001
<0.005
4/12/2006
Totals
309 |
19.4
7.98
0.86
99
17,9
10.5
134
130
25
15
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
f
f
-
-
•
-
-
-
27
15
7
2
<0.002
<0,002
<9.002
<0,01
0,022
<0,005
0.015
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0.005
10/] 8/2005
Totals
295 |
20.4
8.09
1.05
141
17,7
10.4
168
140
29
16
7
2
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.025
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
•
-
-
-
-
2a
15
6
2
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.022
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0.005
4/26/2005
Totals
tn |
IZA
8.01
1.91
NA
16.5
10,2
157
133
21
15
6
2
<0.002
<3.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.031
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.00!
<0,005
Dissolved
- j
¦
-
¦
-
.
28
15
6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0,01
0.026
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
10/13/2004
Totals
275 ]
18.9
7.97
2.3
157
16.6
10.2
154
132
29
16
7
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.026
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
28
15
6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
<0.02
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
4/28/2004
Totals
275 j
19.9
7.42
3.34
124
15.2
<10
160
135
26
15
6
2
<0,01
<0.01
<0.005
<0,005
0.026
<0,01
<0.005
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,01
<0.005
Dissolved
:
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
26
15
6
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0,027
<0.01
<0.005
0,00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<0,01
<0.005
4/28/2004
Totals
273 {
19,9
7.42
3.34
124
15.2
<10
159
132
25
15
6
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.025
<0.01
<0.005
0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
Dissolved
- |
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
.
26
15
6
2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.005
<0.005
0.029
<0.01
<0.005
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0,01
<0.005
11/7/2003
Totals
283 1
17.7
6.65
NA
no
14.8
<10
133
135
27
15
6
2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,044
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.0!
<0.001
<0.01
Dissolved
_ s
!
-
-
-
•
-
.
-
¦
27
15
6
2 I <0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0.038
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,01
! 1/7/2003
Totals
283
17.7
6.65
MA
no
14.6
<10
136
134
27
16
• 6
2 <0.002
<0,002
<0,002
<0.01
0.045
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
-------
Table 2: Analytical Data for Tar Creek Roubidoox Groundwater Monitoring Program
Analysis
Condj
1
!
Temp.
pH
&0.
Alk
(Field)
Chloride
Sulfate
Tot
Dis
Sol
Hardiness
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
(Field)
{Field}
(Field)
CaCOs
CI
S04
TDS
CaCOs
Ca
Mg
Na
K
$b
As
Cd
Cr
Fe
Pb
Mb
Hg
Ni
5e
T1
2u
Unit
fiS/cnj
°C
mg/1
mg/i
!Hg/i
mg/1
rog/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
rag/1
mg/i
rng/l
mgfl
mg/1
mgft
mg/I
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
MCL/{SMCl)
!
I
(6.5-
8.5)
250
250
500
0.006
0.01
0.005
0.1
0.3
0,015
0,05
0.002
0,1
0,05
8.002
5
Roub. IX.
|
82
0.207
0,043
Roub. Back
25
0.062
0.009
nmm
Totals
1191]
20.4
7,59
5,2
126.5
273
34.3
sao
:65
35.3
16.3
IS?
5.4
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.231
<0,005
0.006
<0.00005
<0,01
<0,01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- i
5
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
317
16.8
IKS
5.3
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,117
<0.005
0.006
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
nmm
Totals
1197|
s
20-4
7,78
0.55
143
278
U.S
571
143
35.5
17.1
164
5,4
<0,002
<0,002
<0.002
<0,01
0.145
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0,01
<0.001
<0,01
Dissolved
* I
-
.
-
-
-
35.2
17.2
169
5.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
OLIOS
<0,005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.01
11/11/2010
Totals
1175]
21.3
6,97
0,47
NA
262
17.6
586
155
35,4
16,7
179
5,6
<0.002
<0,002
<0.002
<0.01
0.124
<0.005
<0 01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0,01
Dissolved
|
-
-
-
-
-
-
35,1
16.7
179
5.6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.105
<0.005
. <0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
0.021
<0.001
<0.01
3/25/2010
Totals
I04?j
18J
7,36
1.09 .
144
2&
13.7
602
159
35.7
16,6
179
5.7
<0,002
<0-002
<0.002
<0.01
0.141
<0.005
;<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
0,014
<0.001
0,028
Dissolved
• \
-
•
-
.
-
-
.
34,4
16.4
ISO
5.7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,0 i
0.113
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
0.011
<0.001
<0.005
5/9/200S
Totals
1169 j
22,5
7.37
3.SS
14S
277
12.4
392
171
35.3
16.7
176
5,7
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.0784
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- !
1
-
-
-
-
35.2
16.5
175
5,6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.105
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0,01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
wmnmi
Totals
1189}
20.2
7.72
0.39
142
Ill
13,4
596
168
36.2
17.4
177
5.7
<0,S02
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.144
<0.005
<0,01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
0.012
Dissolved
|
-
-
-
•
-
32.5
15.7
162
5.2
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.0811
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
o.oo?
5/9/2007
Totals
IlSlj
22.4
7.62
1.41
143
111
13
573
170
35.3
17.4
m
62
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0,01
0.118
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<1005
Dissolved
• J
.
-
34.6
17.5
m
6
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.0946
<0.005
<0.01
<0,00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,001
<0.005
11/9/2006
Totals
1446]
20
OS
1.39
270
m
J 8.6
606
159
37
16
m
6
<0,002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.087
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
|
-
-
32
n
164
5
<0.002
<0.002
<0,002
<0.01
0,076
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0-01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
11/9/2006
Totals
34461
20
6.7S
1.39
275
28?
io
598
160
36
16
171
6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0.09
<0.005
<0.01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0.001
<0.005
Dissolved
- i
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
33
!6
167
6
<0.002
<0.002
<0.002
<0.01
0,075
<0.005
<0,01
<0.00005
<0.01
<0.01
<0,00i
<0.005
Averages
1,224]
20.7
736
1.67
170
275
14.6
568
162
35
16.7
m
5,6
0,002
0.002
0.002
0.01
0.115
0.005
0.009
0.00005
0.81
0.011
0.001
0.008
Notes: j
Cond. - conductivity I
Temp. - temperature I
Alk = alkalinity I
ps/cm = microSiemens per centimeterj
°C = degree Celsius |
m^L = m]ligram pa liter I
MCL - maximum containment levels |s of May, 2009 CEP A, 2009)
SMCL - secondary maximum containment levels as of May, 2009 (EPA, 2009)
Roub. T. I. - Roubidoux tolerance liirtt
Roub. Back = Roubidoux background j
Bold = indicates an MCL or SMCL exleedance
NA ~ not analyzed I
- = not relevant $
B2
-------
Table 3: Metal Concentrations in Groundwater Samples Central Mill (FT059)/Repository Monitor Wells
i
S3
-------
Table 3: Metal Concentrations in Groundwater Samples Central Mill (FT059)/Repository Monitor Wells
I
Analysis
Aluminum
Antinomy
Ajsemc
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chronv, jm
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnestam
Manganese
Mercyiy
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vaaadi»iD
Zinc
A! |
Sb
As
Ba
Be
Cd
Ca
Cr (total)
Co
Co
Fe
Pb
Mg
Mrs
Hg
Ni
K
Se
Ag
Na
T1
V
Zu
Unit
ms*l i
(ig/L
Hgt
Mg&
Pfifc
jig/L
pg/L
ug/L
jig/L
tai-
Mg'l
Hgfl-
MSt
VSfi-
Mg&
PgIL
ttgflL
fi$L
MCUfSMCL)
(50 - 2001
i
1
6
10
2000
4
5
Na
100
Na
1300/(1000)
300
ls'
Na
-50
2
Ha
Na
50
100
Na
2
Na
5000
Acute*
Na j
Na
360
Na
Na
m
Na
Ma
Na
71
Na
477
Na
Na
2
4582
Na
20
44
Na
1400
Na
379
Chronic*
Na 1
Na
ISO
Na
Na
3
Na
50
Na
42
Na
19
Na
Na
1
509
Na
5
Na
Na
Na
Na
343
12/7/2011
Result
200 1
?
4
93
20
2
2
614000
4
2,4
IJ
33500
2
24500
629
0.2
15.7
10500
10
2
19800
2
10
246
Qualifier
U I
U
-
U
U
V
=
tr
-
U
-
U
»
-
U
Jl
=
U
U
.
U
U
=
HV5 Iot**teah
WM t
'
5/7/2009
Result
- j
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
Qualifier
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
•
-
-
-
-
7/28/2009
Result
- I
-
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Qualifier
•
-
•
-
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
10/14/2009
Result
ioo i
2
m
19.7
5
5
564000
10
20
27
30900
45.7
26200
811
0.2
20
10500
2
10
18700
2
20
ire:
Qualifier
XI 1
U
=
-
V
U
=
u
U
JH
*
=
=
=
U
U
=
U
u
=
U
«
in
8/31/2010
Result
100 1
0.2
vt
14.6
5
5
5! 5000
10
20
20
37200
10.9
21800
4M
20
10700
OA
10
18000
0.2
20
Qualifier
u j
U
-
=
U
U
=
u
U
U
*
=
=
=
=
U
=
U"
u
=
U
U
12/8/2010
Result
500 j
2
123
50
25
25
592003
50
100
100
37000
5.5
242(H)
587
0.2
100
11100
2'
50
18300
2
iOO
325
Qualifier
u j
U
-
u
U
V
=
0
u
u
-
=
=
U
V
=
u
u
=
U
u
=
=6/16/2011
Result
20 j
2
I5JS
14.1
1
1
546000
2
1
2
39500
5.4
20600
451
0.2
8.4
8940
5
1
16300
1
5
305
Qualifier
u j
U
=
-
u
TJ
=
UJ
u
u
=
=
=
-
V
J
U;
u
=
O
U
=
9/29/2011
Result
599 1
2
42
15.4
1
23
603000
35
2,8
24.S
61000
349
28000
M
0.2
5.4
9980
5
1
18400
1
5
Qualifier
= i
U
=
=
u
=
»
=
=
=
J
-
=
U
1
=
U:
u
=
u
u
-
12/7/2011
Result
200 1
2
13,7
n
]
I
702000
2
2.S
L5
350W
4.8
23600
556
0J22
14.9
10400
5
1
19200
2
5
262
Qualifier
u i
V
-
u
U
X
U
*
U
J
=
-
J
U
3
7=
U'
u
=
U
U
i
PiYKJ-
ItantivtAMrtsu
i i
1
B
5/6/2009
Result
100 I
1
S,7
30,5
5
5
357000
10
31
25,8
55400
S
59900
sm
02
20
6310
10
81300
1
20
253
Qualifier
u ]
U
JH
=
u
U
=
u
=
JH
=
O
=
=
=
U
=
u
u
=
0
0
JH
7/28/2009
Result
100 j
2
7.6
24.2
5
5
272000
10
48,6
20
63400
2
55000
9570
0.2
20
3970
2 .
10
69800
2
20
94
Qualifier
U J
U
.
=
U
U
=
u
-
U
=
C
„ -
=
U
-
U.
u
-
U
U
J
10/14/2009
Result
100 1
1
5
S.4-
30.5 =
5
5
344000
10
41.3
20
60400
5
67400
9140
0.2
20
5650
5 i
10
86900
5
20
80.9
Qualifier
u }
U
=
-
U
U
u
u
=
U
=
-
U
U
*
U
u
=
U
U
3H
8/3I/2G10
Result
100 j
0,2
4
32.2
5
5
304000
10
22.2
20
34500
0.4
60600
5536
0.2
20
5120
QA
10
76600
0.2
20
20
Qualifier
v i
U
-
=
U
U
=
u
=
U
=
U
=
=
=
U
.
U'
u
=
U
U
0
12/8/2010
Result
500 1
2
3.3
50
25
25
314000
50
100
100
60300
2
62900
9680
0.2
100
5000
2
JO
77200
2
100
100
Qualifier
u j
U
=
U
U
U
=
u
u
u
*
U
=
=
U
u
u
U
u
=
O
u
u
6/14/2011
Result
20 1
2
2.2
293
1
1
308000
2
58.2
2
86200
1
62200
12500
0.2
125
3900
5
1
77200
1
5
26.8
Qualifier
U j
U
J*
=
ir
u
-
U
=
U
=
u
-
=
U
J
u.
u
=
u
u
uc
9/29/201!
Result
278 j
2
9.6
24.7
i
397000
7.4
2S.7
2
49900
i
58200
7370
0.2
5.7
5720
5 ..
1
72900
1
2.4
91,1
Qualifier
UC j
U
=
u
u
=
=
-
u
-------
Notes: j
* = Oklahoma Water Quality Standa&s obtained from 785 OAC 45 Appendix 0. Values for Cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, siker( 2
'Remediation goal from 0U4 ROD - also !he MCL
|ig/L = microgram per liter
MCL ^ maximum containment level j
SMCL - secondary maximum contaroment level
bold = MCUSMCL exccedance
shaded - Water Quality Standard exc eedaiiee
- = analysis not performed \
- - defec-ed concentration j
J = estimated concentration I
JH = estimated concentration, resultsjbiased high
NA - not applicable I
U = not detected \
e calculated based on a hardness of400 mg/L, which is the maximum default recommended by EPA in calculating water quality standards.
1
i
1
1
-------
Figure 2: Roubidoux Monitoring Well Locations
SeySmt, B- lX j-isa ©aUXSl
. J.jLii i L-lS ' ' .
to. usable, and timely information,
©data and information on this map
y or out of daft* and* prodded with
0 that t is not guaranteed to be
». Condusors drawn from, or
Bis of. such data and
b the sole responsibility of the user
DfMITMl r Of ENVttONMCHUl OUAXTT
Legend
(^) Monffo/mg Wells
Superfund Area
Figure 2:
Roubidoux Monitoring
Well Locations
s
Map Created by Brent Stone
on 5/15/2015
1.5
6 Mies
36
-------
3.5 Site Inspections
An SI was conducted at the site from January 14 to 16,2015. The completed SI checklist is
provided in Appendix E. Photographs taken during the SI are provided in Appendix F.
The Admiralty Mine Site dike and diversion channel at Douthat Bridge was visited during the SI,
The stream channel improvements that divert Lytle Creek to an upper reach of Tar Creek
appeared to be functioning as designed.' There" were' no "signs that the' stream was' eroding the'
channel. Riprap was present along the cut-banks of the channel. The dike was in good condition
and there was no evidence of erosion, slides, burrows, or sloughing.
Five wells (Tulsa Mine, Powerhouse well, Quapaw #5, Quapaw #2, and Picher #5) that enter the
Roubidoux aquifer were visited during the SI. The Tuisa Mine and Powerhouse wells were
plugged in January 2015. Plugging these wells is imperative to protect the Roubidoux aquifer
from Boone aquifer contamination. The three additional wells are municipal water supply wells.
After action monitoring documents that Quapaw #5 exceeds indicator parameter criteria for
determining impacted wells. Quapaw #2 is a backup well for Quapaw and while it does not
exceed MCLs it has shown historical exceedances of indicator parameters and has a connection
to the Roubidoux. ODEQ has concerns about these two wells (i.e., Quapaw #5 and Quapaw #2),
and intends to have discussions with the City of Quapaw regarding plugging these wells.
The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program has sampled approximately 13 wells
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer. The results of the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program are documented in After Action Monitoring Reports and described in Section 3.4.
The 01;2 ROD addresses lead-contaminated soil in residential yards and HAAs. HAAs are areas
which are areas frequented by children, such as parks and schoolyards. Contaminated soils
excavated from residential yards and I lAAs were disposed at two on-site repositories (South
Repository and state-line Repository). Both OU2 repositories were secured by locked gates and
barbed wire fence. Although the SI occurred during winter, it was apparent that the repositories
are well vegetated. Remediation of residential yards for GU2 was completed in the towns of
Afton, Cardin, Commerce, Fairland, Miami, Nareissa, North Miami, Peoria, Picher, Quapaw,
and Wyandotte. Drive-by inspections of remediated properties were conducted in Quapaw,
Commerce, and Miami. Remediated properties included yards, driveways, and alleyways. Yards
that were inspected appeared to be in good condition and had vegetation. Driveways and'
alleyways that were inspected also appeared in good condition and were easily identified from
the presence of fresh limestone. Existing data on blood lead levels in children at the site have
demonstrated that the OU2 remediation has been effective.
The OU4 ROD addresses source materials, smelter wastes, rural residential yard contamination,
transition zone soil contamination, and contamination in water drawn from rural residential
wells. The voluntary buyout (LICRAT) conducted under OU4 was completed in 2011. Residents
of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, Oklahoma were relocated through the LICRAT program. The
LICRAT-bu-yout--fa~-resi4ents-ofJ?i-Giier-rCardi»y-and~H.0Gker¥ilfejwas-G0mpl-©ted4n--2O-l~l.,-Tr€®G%-
Kansas, was later added to the buyout. The Treece buyout was documented in an ESD regarding
the OU4 ROD, In 2009, EPA provided $3.5 million to the Kansas Department of Health and
37
-------
Environment (KDHE) to fund the buyout of qualified occupants in Treece. The Treece buyout
was handled by the Treece Relocation Assistance (TRA) Trust with the support of KDHE. The
Treece buyout was completed in 2012.
Source material from rural residential yard cleanups was placed in the OU4 repository located on
E 40 Rd. The OU4 repository was visited during the site inspection. The OU4 repository was
behind a locked gate and fence. However, the hinge on the gate was damaged and was in need of
repair, (has since been fixed). Chat washing/sale operations (at Sooner Pile and Atlas Pile) were
visited during the SI. Several distal properties were visited during the SI. Remedial action was
occurring during the SI at Distal 8 (Catholic 40) and Distal 6A (see Figure 3 for the locations of
the distal areas). During the SI, source material was being hauled from Distal 6A to a subsidence
area on S 605 Rd. Distal 8 was being seeded during the SI. Distal 6 (CP 104), Distal 7 North, and
Distal 1 North were visited. Distal 6 and Distal 1 North had good vegetative growth present.
However, Distal 7 North had sparse vegetation and according to the Quapaw Tribe, source
material was left near the drainage that runs through the property. The 605 subsidence, located
near Hockerville and which is being used as the repository for Distal 6A, was visited during the
SI. At the time of the SI, 72,000 tons of transition zone (TZ) soil and source material had been
placed into this subsidence area. The county-owned subsidence, also located near Hockerville,
was visited during the SI. This subsidence has the potential for accepting source material from
other distal properties. Another subsidence located near Hockerville, which is now filled with
construction and demolition waste, was also visited. This subsidence has been capped. This
repository had obvious cap settling. In addition, it was clear that all-terrain vehicles (ATV) had
been driving over the repository cap. Additional soil should be placed on the settling cap.
3.5 Interviews
During the course of the five-year review, interviews were conducted by ODEQ with several
'parties involved with the site, including: (1) ODEQ; (2) EPA Region 6; (3) Tribal Nations; (4)
Ottawa County Health Department; (5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and (6) Local
Environmental Action Demanded (LEAD); Interview questionnaires were sent to 14 individuals,
and responses were received from 13. Interview record forms documenting the issues discussed
during these interviews are provided in Appendix D.
Ottawa County residential property owners whose properties were remediated by EPA under
OU2 and OU4 signed acknowledgment of completion forms accepting all work that was
performed. In addition, the City of Miami accepted the remedial work that was performed in
their alleyways.
38
-------
Figure 3, Distal Areas
VMb mate evary effort to provide and mamtam
¦ and information on fits map
t ba prafimraty or out of data and is proridad **lh
e underetandng that t rs not g
mkujmim of nmnrnam OMtinr
Legend
I I Distal Areas
I I Dtstal Zones
—- Supoifund Area
Figure 3:
Distal Areas
Map Created by Brent Stone
on 5/14/2015
4 Miles
Repository
\1KU>
Commerce
North
•Miami
and -c
Creek Distal Zc ne
Picher
Cardin
Sources: Esri,
China (Hong Kong),
User Community
P Corp.. NRCAN. Esri Japan. METl. Esri
© OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS
39
-------
Overall, the interviewees had a favorable impression of the work completed at Tar Creek OU2,
The fact that children's blood lead levels have been significantly reduced was an important
factor. However, there are mixed feelings about the work completed in OU4, and several
individuals interviewed expressed frustration with the progress of the project. Frustration has
been focused on the amount of unfinished work, cost overruns stemming from inadequate site
characterization, and the lack of usable land due to the removal of transition zone soils. EPA and
ODEQ are in the process of addressing the concerns expressed in the interview records through
implementation of the September 2014 RAO Report (as discussed in Section 4.4). Additionally,
some concerns were expressed about the lack of addressing the contamination in Tar Creek
proper and the use of subsidence areas as repositories.
Effects on the community have been perceived as generally positive due to the removal of chat
and contaminated soils on residential properties, decreased blood lead levels in children, and an
overall reduction in risk. Additionally, an economic benefit has been experienced in the
community due the Superfund jobs training initiative. However, some negative effects were
reported by interviewees which mainly focused on unfinished work and the loss of TZ soils
related to the OU4 RA some property owners are reported to be upset and this is creating access
issues. EPA and ODEQ are presently addressing individual property owner concerns.
Community concerns surround mine water discharge and seeps and water from the CMR that
flows into Tar Creek, which eventually empties into Spring River and Grand Lake. Traffic and
dust issues related to the heavy use of the county roads have become a concern in the
community. Additionally, concerns remain within the community about the impacts to the
Roubidoux aquifer. The Roubidoux aquifer meets MCLs and is safe for use as a drinking water
supply.
When solicited for suggestions and recommendations, many interviewees responded with an
assortment of ideas and suggestions. These suggestions can be generally described as either
technical or managerial. Technical suggestions included installing passive treatment systems to
reduce contaminant of concern (COC) loading rates to Tar Creek, encapsulating chat under
paved roads, and addressing TZ soils in manner that makes them more viable. Managerial
suggestions mainly focused on a stronger EPA presence at the site and increased information
sharing amongst the stakeholders. Many of the downstream Tribes believed they were not
entirely informed about actions at the site.
Generally, ODEQ believes it is informed about actions at the site. In addition, many tribal
responses indicated that the tribes generally believe that they have been informed about progress
at the site, but admit they would like to see increased information sharing. There are, however,
tribal members that believe that they are not being informed. These tribal members also request
increased information sharing. Other stakeholders gave mixed responses as to whether they
believed they were well informed. Regardless, it is clear that all parties involved would like more
substantial information sharing. EPA continues to conduct numerous scheduled conference calls
and in-person meeting with site stakeholders.
40
-------
The tribes would like to see EPA reduce the amount of unilateral decision making. ODEQ would
like a more substantial role in the decision making process, EPA has Cooperative Agreements
with both ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe to further engage them in the RA process.
41
-------
4,0 Technical Assessment
The five-year review must determine whether the remedy at a site is protective of human health
and the environment, EPA guidance lists three questions to be used to provide a framework for
organizing and evaluating data and information and to ensure all relevant issues are considered
when determining the proteetiveness of a remedy. These questions are answered for the site in
the following paragraphs. At the end of the section is a summary of the technical assessment.
4.1 Question A: Is the Remedy Functioning as Intended by the Decision Documents?
The documents that memorialize the remedy selection decisions for the site are the June 1984
ROD for Oil 1, the August 1997 ROD for OU2, the March 2000 Action Memorandum for OU3,
the February 2008 ROD for OII4, and the April 2010 ESD for the OU4 ROD. For OU1, O&M at
the Admiralty Mining Site is ongoing and the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program was
completed in 2014. The RA for OU2 continues under a Cooperative Agreement with ODEQ.
OU3 was a removal response action and requires no further action. The remedial design
(RD)/RA for distal properties and several Phase 1 RA activities have been completed or are
currently ongoing under OU4. The OU4 RA began in 2009 and it is projected to take 30 years to
complete. This section discusses the RA performance, O&M, costs, ICs, monitoring activities,
opportunities for optimization, and early indicators of potential remedy problems.
RA Performance
Based on the data review, the SI, document reviews, and site interviews it appears that the
various Tar Creek Superfund Site remedies selected in the QUI, OU2, and OU4 RODs are
functioning as intended.
As noted in previous five-year reviews, the diking and diversion work performed as part of the
OU1 remedy was not successful at reducing the discharges of acid mine water to Tar Creek;
however, it did affect recharge to the mines associated with rainfall events. Therefore, the diking
and diversion portion of the remedy was at best only partially effective (EPA, 1994). Since the
last five-year review, ODEQ has plugged two wells identified at the site that were completed in
the Roubidoux aquifer. EPA and ODEQ continue to evaluate the need to plug abandoned
Roubidoux wells as they are identified and located, ODEQ discovered three additional wells
potentially completed in the Roubidoux aquifer. There are still 19 wells that require further
evaluation and possibly plugging if it is technically feasible (ODEQ, 2006a and ODEQ, 2015a).
Two of the 19 wells are part of the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program and are
identified as probably and potentially impacted by the overlying mine workings. In addition, nine
of the remaining 17 wells are located on restricted property and are not accessible by ODEQ.
Therefore, eight wells still require investigation and assessment to determine the feasibility of
being plugged. As noted in a July 22, 2014 letter, EPA considers the OU1 RA complete as soon
as well plugging activities have been completed, and all future activities will fall under O&M
(EPA, 2014c).
Remedial action for OU2 is still ongoing and there are still activities necessary to assess potential
soil contamination associated with chat present in yards, alleyways and driveways in portions of
42
-------
Ottawa County outside the mining area. The RA for OU2 is still in progress under the
cooperative agreement'EPA has entered into with ODEQ regarding OU2. Under that agreement,
ODEQ will undertake the remediation of OU2 with EPA oversight. EPA continues to take calls
from Ottawa County residents for residential yard remediation.
Until 2012, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)'s blood lead level of concern in children six
years old and younger was 10 fig/dL, but that has changed and now the CDC is saying that there
is no safe blood lead level for young children.1 EPA has used a blood lead level of 5 |ig/dL as a
benchmark in its recent analyses. In Ottawa County, the percentage of children with blood lead
levels that exceed 5 jag/dL has decreased from 11.6 to 3.7 percent from 2007 to 2014. The 3.7
percent calculated for 2014 is slightly higher than the average for Oklahoma (2.4 percent)
(Oklahoma State Department of Health [OSDH], 2015). However, the blood lead data collected
from children have demonstrated that the OU2 RA has been effective.
Final closure of the OU2 South Repository (adjacent to the CMR) has been completed and a
deed notice was filed on the property in 2014. At the time of this report, the OU2 County
Repository is undergoing final closure and a deed notice will be filed on the property. Final
closure has been performed in accordance with the OU2 ROD.
The voluntary relocation performed by LICRAT and funded by EPA as part of the OU4 remedy
has been completed in Ottawa County. The Treece, Kansas buyout was handled by the TRA
Trust with the support of KDHE. The Treece buyout was completed in 2012. The voluntary
relocation has removed 628 residences, 74 businesses, and 125 renters from the most impacted
portions of the mining area and has reduced the potential for exposure to site-related
contamination.
RA activities for OU4 began in late 2009 and to date 56 chat piles and chat bases totaling
approximately 1,6 million tons of chat, transition zone soils, and fine tailings have been
remediated and 309,787 tons of chat sold, and four subsidence features have been filled. OU4
RA is ongoing.
Operation and Maintenance
The ROD for OUi does not specifically state what O&M activities were to occur at the site.
However, the ROD does mention O&M and costs related to the dikes and diversion work. O&M
activities are currently underway at the Admiralty Mining Site near Douthat Bridge. O&M
activities are being performed for the dikes and diverted creek channels at the site. The updated
O&M plan was completed in 2012. Annual inspections are performed for the diversion and dike
remedy at the Admiralty site and annual inspections items include; abnormal occurrence
response plans, performance standards, and annual cost estimates of O&M (ODEQ, 2012a). As
1 See Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children (1991) at p. 7 ("Blood lead levels
at least as low as 10 ng/dL are associated with adverse effects"). Later the CDC revised its position saying that there
was no safe level for lead in young children. See CDC Response to Advisory Committee onjChildhoqd Lead_
T^fmmhgPrevenfldnMecommendaiiom in "Low LevefleaSTZxposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of
Primary Prevention" (November 26, 2013) ("CDC will emphasize that the best way to end childhood lead
poisoning is to prevent, control or eliminate lead exposures. Since no safe blood lead level in children has been
identified, a blood lead "level of concern" cannot be used to define individuals in need of intervention.".)
43
-------
mentioned in the previous five-year review the Muneie and Big John sites located in Kansas will
no longer require O&M (EPA, 2010). In a letter dated July 22, 2014, EPA indicated that it was
moving toward OU1 RA completion, with completion of ODEQ well-plugging activities being
the last RA activity for OU1. Once the RA is complete, OU 1 will move entirely into O&M
(EPA, 2014c).
The RA for OU2 is ongoing. The OU2 ROD calls for O&M to maintain the repositories. It also
calls for supplemental ICs (discussed below). Both soil repositories used for OU2 have been
vegetated to prevent or reduce erosion. The OU2 ROD calls for a clean soil cap on any parts of
the repositories where the soil lead concentrations exceed the remediation goal (500 parts per
million fppmj).
The RA for OU4 is ongoing, However, the OMR and other areas where source materials are
disposed (e.g., subsidence features) will require O&M activities once the OU4 RA is complete.
Costs of O&M
The OU1 ROD states that O&M costs related to the diking and diversion portion of the selected
remedy would be approximately $5,000 per year. No costs associated with the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program were provided in the OU1 ROD. O&M costs associated with
the O&M of the Admiralty Mine Site dike and stream diversion provided by ODEQ totaled
$1,221. Maintenance of the dikes and diversion channels has been minimal since the OU1 RA
was completed. The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program has been revised through the
years to obtain the data necessary to assess the water quality of the aquifer. Sampling of the
Roubidoux currently occurs on an annual basis to ensure that the drinking water supply is safe.
The OU2 ROD states that O&M associated with maintaining the soil repositories and ICs would
be $60,000 per year. RA activities are ongoing, and no O&M costs have been incurred associated
with OU2.
O&M associated with the selected OU4 remedy will be approximately $375,000 per year from
Year 3 through Year 22 of the remedy, eventually decreasing to $125,000 per year in about Year
23 of OU4 response actions (EPA, 2008).
Implementation of ICs
ICs are generally defined as non-engineered instruments such as administrative and legal tools
that do not involve construction or physically changing the site and that help minimize the
potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a remedy by
limiting land and/or resource use (EPA, 2005). ICs may include deed notices, easements,
covenants, restrictions, or other conditions on deeds, and/or groundwater and/or land use
restriction documents (EPA, 2001). The following paragraphs describe the ICs implemented at
the site, the potential effect of future land use plans on ICs, and any plans for changes to site
contamination status.
44
-------
The 0U1 ROD did not call for the use of ICs (EPA, 1984), Potential ICs for OU2 are listed in
the OU2 ROD (EPA, 1997).
The OU2 ROD stipulated that all ICs may not be necessary, or that some would only be used in
special circumstances as dictated by conditions encountered at a specific property during the RA.
In addition, the ROD stated that authorities of other government entities might be required to
implement some of the ICs (e.g., zoning restrictions would require the municipal authority, lease
restrictions might require DOI authority, etc.). The OU2 ROD further stated that many ICs, such
as community-wide health education, community-wide blood lead monitoring, and community-
wide lead-contaminated dust reduction activities were appropriate for application in residential
areas throughout Ottawa County (EPA, 1997).
As noted in the preceding five-year review, the following ICs have been implemented under
OU2:
1. EPA issued fact sheets describing the safe uses of mine tailings;
2. The Oklahoma Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (OCLPPP) carried out by
the Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) in conjunction with the OSDOH has
provided childhood lead poisoning prevention education through community and tribal
health fairs, Head Start and child care programs, and community organizations and
events;
3. The OCHD has conducted blood lead screenings; and,
4. ODEQ has placed deed notices on residential properties (as part of the voluntary
relocation for OU4) and repositories calling property owner's attention to the presence of
contamination.
To help ensure that site chat sales continue and that chat is used in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment under the OU4 ROD, chat that is used on-site or off-site must
be managed according to the criteria provided in the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278, and its
preamble.2 Under the remedy selected in the OU4 ROD, only the uses described in the preamble
(including EPA's June 2007 fact sheet; EPA530-F-07-016B) and the transportation construction
project uses described in 40 CFR Part 278 will be allowed for site chat. The OU4 ROD provides
that chat sales are part of the remedy for OU4 chat (EPA, 2008).
The ICs concerning blood lead monitoring, health education, and lead-contaminated dust
reduction activities are currently being implemented through agreements between the EPA,
ODEQ, and OCHD or as part of the OU2 RA. EPA funds the OCHD to perform blood lead
screening and health education activities at the site (EPA, 2010b). Outside of the RA work, lead-
contaminated dust reduction activities are part of the ongoing community education efforts. Once
the RA activities for OU2 are completed, EPA will work with the various authorities (city,
county, state, and federal) to implement any of the additional ICs necessary to maintain the
protectiveness of the OU2 remedy.
2 The Chat Rule can be found at 72 Fed. Reg. 39235 (July 18, 2007). It can also be found at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/chat/.
-------
As part of the ICs for OU2, a deed notice has been filed on the South Repository (Flint property)
regarding the presence of chat and soils exceeding the 500-milligram per kilogram (mg/kg)
remediation goal. The deed notice was filed in 2012 after the final inspection and closure of the
South Repository, The South Repository was visited during the SI and the repository cap was
well vegetated with a good stand of grass. After final inspection and closure of the County
Repository, a deed notice will be filed on that property. This task should be completed during
2015. The.remedy selected in the OU4 ROD calls for ICs and O&M activities to be implemented
at locations where source materials are covered in place. Locations where ICs and O&M
activities are to be implemented under the OU4 ROD include tailing ponds that are covered and
the on-site repositories and that would be covered when closure is completed. These and other
ICs included in the selected remedy for OU4 are detailed in Table 4. The table also describes the
status of the IC as determined during this five-year review:
Table 4: Status of Institutional Controls
Location/Area
IC Applied
IC Objective
ic
Instrument
Responsible
Organization
Current Status
Covered Fine
Tailings
Restrict future use of
the property to
protect the integrity
of the engineered
cover system.
Deed Notice
and Easement
filed pursuant
to Oklahoma
Statute 27A §
2-7-123(8)
ODEQ
For property
where DOI is the
trustee, ICs will
be established in
coordination
with DOI.
No status change since ROD
issued.
On-site
Repositories
Restrict future use of
the property to
protect the integrity
of the engineered
containment system.
Deed Notice
and Easement
filed pursuant
to Oklahoma
Statute 27A §
2-7-123(B)
ODEQ
For property
where DOI is the
trustee, ICs will
be established in
coordination
with DOI.
Deed notices have been filed
on two subsidence area
repositories: CB223 and
CB143/146/147. The deed
notices were filed in 2014.
Property
Acquired via
Voluntary
Relocation
Restrict future use of
the property to
prevent exposure of
residential or
commercial
inhabitants to
chemicals above the
Final Remediation
Goals.
Deed Notice
and Easement
filed pursuant
to Oklahoma
Statute 27A §
2-7-123(B)
ODEQ
The controls
shall be in effect
until the state
determines that
the area is safe
for reuse.
Deed notices have been filed
on properties acquired via the
voluntary relocation.
Shallow
Groundwater
Restrict future uses
of groundwater from
the portion of the
Boone aquifer (or
shallower) for
potable or domestic
OWQS
Title 785,
Chapter 45,
Appendix H
ODEQ
ODEQ changed the "Beneficial
Use Designations for Certain
Limited Areas of
Groundwater" (OWQS 785
Chapter 45, Appendix H).
Under this change, special well
supply that is—
impacted by site-
related contaminants
corisfruction Is required to
obtain water for potable use
and groundwater testing is
46
-------
I .oeation/Area
IC. Applied
IC Objective
IC
Instrument
Responsible
Organization
Current Status
above the Final
Remediation Goals,
required to meet potable use
standards for lead, arsenic, and
cadmium (ODEQ, 2012b and
OWRB, 2013).
Vlonitorinc Activities
The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program under OU1 has continued through 2014. The
program has been implemented by ODEQ and funded by EPA to assess and monitor the
effectiveness of the well plugging portion of the remedy in terms of protection of the Roubidoux
aquifer. EPA is working toward completion of the RA for OU1. It will be appropriate for O&M
to begin once the requirements of the NCP in 40 CFR 300.435(f) are met (EPA, 2014c). ODEQ
will consider continuing the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program under state funding.
The data collected through the sampling indicate that the Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally
by acid mine water. The mechanism for acid mine water migration into the Roubidoux is not
totally clear. To-date, the data collected regarding the connection between the Boone and
Roubidoux aquifers indicate that the primary pathway for groundwater and contaminants to
migrate into the Roubidoux aquifer from the Boone aquifer and mine workings has been through
abandoned wells, wells that have faulty casings and/or poor seals across the Boone Formation,
and through unplugged abandoned boreholes (CH2M HILL, 2008, and ODEQ, 2006a). The
drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux aquifer in the mining area continues to meet the
health-based primary drinking water standards (i.e., MCLs) and is considered safe for use as a
drinking water supply.
Opportunities for Optimization
Optimization means efforts at any phase of the removal or remedial response to identify and
implement specific actions that improve the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of that phase. Such
actions may also improve the remedy's protectiveness and long-term implementation, which may
facilitate progress towards site completion. To identify these opportunities, regions may use a
systematic site review by a team of independent technical experts or apply other approaches to
identify opportunities for greater efficiency and effectiveness. In September 2014, EPA and the
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) finalized the RAO
Report prepared for OU1 and OU4. In the report, several optimization opportunities are outlined
for OU1 and OU4. For OU1 the optimization team recommended that all efforts be continued to
protect the Roubidoux aquifer. Protection of the aquifer is far simpler than remediation of the
aquifer should it become impacted; consequently, protection of the Roubidoux aquifer should
remain a high priority for all stakeholders. Tasks that will assist in the protection of the
Roubidoux aquifer include: (1) plugging wells connecting the Boone to the Roubidoux
immediately upon discovery; (2) ceasing the practice of injecting the high concentration, highly
teachable, chat fines into the Boone aquifer; and (3) continuing to monitor the hydrodynamics
between the Boone and Roubidoux aquifers (EPA, 2014d).
remedial activities based on COC loading rates, and stopping the loading of COCs to the
watershed and riparian areas. A wide variety of loading rates exist from the various mine-related
47
-------
wastes that are considered source material. Bull rock and larger chat fractions have lower COC
concentrations and lower rates of leaching. The main concerns with regard to loading rates are
the seeps from the mines and chat piles adjacent to surface water. For this reason, stabilizing
these seeps from chat piles/bases and mines should be a primary objective. In addition, according
to the optimization team, steps should be taken to prevent additional surface erosion and
stormwater runoff from chat piles and chat bases bordering surface waters. The optimization
team also suggested working with the trustees (including the USFWS) to begin the remediation
and restoration of riparian areas (EPA, 2014d).
EPA has begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of contaminated soils,
EPA is adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in soil, making them less
bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue excavation of
contaminated TZ soils. It is hoped that more topsoil may be preserved by adding phosphate-
containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an objective of the pilot study is to
reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable levels while decreasing the volume of TZ soils being
excavated and disposed at the CMR (EPA, 2014d).
Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Problems
As noted in previous five-year reviews, the discharges of acid mine water to far Creek have not
decreased significantly since the construction of the dikes and diversion channels. No other
problems were noted during the SI.
4.2 Question B: Are the Exposure Assumptions, Toxicity Data, Cleanup Levels, and
RAOs Used at the Time of the Remedy Selection Still Valid?
This section addresses changes in environmental standards, newly promulgated standards, and
"To Be Considered" standards (TBC), changes in exposure pathways, changes in toxicity and
other contaminant characteristics, and changes in risk assessment methods during the five-year
review period, and progress toward meeting RAOs.
Changes in Standards, Newly Promulgated Standards, and TBCs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR) for this site were identified in
the RODs for OlJl, OU2 and OU4; previous five-year review reports; and site documents. This
five-year review included identification of and evaluation of changes in the ROD-specified
ARARs and TBCs to determine whether such changes may affect the protectiveness of the
selected remedy. The ARARs and TBCs identified by the RODs for the site include chemical-,
action-, and location- requirements. These ARARs and TBCs are described below.
QUI ROD (signed on June 6,1984)
Chemical-Specific Requirements:
No contaminant-specific requirements were identified in the OUl ROD. However, the first five-
.yearjmdawj£poi:tidenfified4lieT»Uowing-Ghemicaisp©Gifi€'ARA.-RsT0i-tIie-4?y4--i:emedyt
1. OWQS, Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 785:45.
48
-------
2. Regulations regarding the discharge of wastewater to surface waters, Water Quality
Criteria, 40 CFR §131.
3. National Primary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR §141.
4. National Secondary Drinking Water Standards, 40 CFR §143,
Action-Specific Requirements:
No action-specific requirements were identified in the OU1 ROD.
Location-Specific Requirements;
The following location-specific ARARs were identified in the OU1 ROD;
1. Executive Order on Floodplain Management, Executive Order No. 11988.
2. Executive Order on Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order No. 11990.
However, these location-specific ARARs are only applicable to the construction of the diking
and diversion structures, and this construction is no longer occurring at the site. Therefore, as a
practical matter, they are not applicable to site remediation; should additional construction
activities occur that affects flood plains or wetlands, these ARARs may be applicable.
OU2 ROD (signed on August 27,1997)
Chemical-Specific Requirements:
No chemical-specific requirements were identified in the OU2 ROD.
Action-Specific Requirements:
1. Regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, 49 CFR § 107, and §171-
§177.
2. CWA requirements regarding the use of best management practices (BMP) and
monitoring of discharges to ensure compliance with effluent discharge limitations, 40
CFR §122.41 and §125.100.
3. Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements to control particulate emissions to ambient air, 40
CFR §50 and §60.
Location-Specific Requirements:
1. National Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects to historic landmarks
and to coordinate activities with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), 16 USC
470, et. Seq. and 40 CFR §6.301.
2. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects on
historical and archeological data and to coordinate activities with the SHPO, 16 USC
469,40 CFR §6.301(b), and 36 CFR §800.
49
-------
3. Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act requirements to avoid undesirable impacts
to such landmarks and to coordinate activities with the SHPO, 16 USC 461-467, and 40
CFR §6.301 (a).
4. Endangered Species Act of 1973, Federal Migratory Bird Act, and Oklahoma Wildlife
Statutes regulations and requirements requiring that endangered species and their habitat
be conserved, and that consultation occur with the DOl and the Oklahoma State
Department of Wildlife if such areas are affected, 16 USC 1531-1543, 50 CFR Parts 17
and 402, 40 CFR §6.302(h), 16 USC 703-712, and Oklahoma Statutes Title 29, Section
5-412,
5. Oklahoma Water Statutes limitations on the placement or discharge of deleterious,
noxious, or toxic substances into affected waters of Oklahoma, Oklahoma Statutes Title
29, Section 7-401.
6. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and CWA Section 404 requirements related to the
Nationwide Permit for discharge of dredged or fill materials, 33 CFR §330 and 33 USC
1344.
OU4 ROD (signed on February 20,2008)
Chemical-Specific Requirements:
Federal Safe Drinking Water Act MCL of 0.015 mg/L for lead, 40 CFR §141.8.
Action-Specific Requirements:
1. Regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials, 49 CFR § 107, and §171-
§177.
2. CWA requirements regarding the use of pollution prevention plans (PPP) and BMPs and
monitoring of discharges to assure compliance with effluent discharge limitations, 40
CFR §122.26.
3. CAA requirements to control particulate emissions to ambient air, 40 CFR 850.6 (PMio)
and §50.12 (Lead).
4. SDWA addressing the UIC regulations for a Class V injection well, regarding injection of
source materials into mine rooms, 40 CFR §144 UIC Program.
5. Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act, monitoring of injected fluid, 27A O.S. §2-6-
701 et seq., Management of Solid Waste, Title 252 OAC, Chapter 652 UIC,
6. CWA, a watershed-based approach will be taken to address the potential effects RAs may
have on the local watersheds, §404 33 CFR §320-§330 and 40 CFR §230.
7. OWQS, monitoring wells installed during RA will be designed to comply with standards,
OAC 785:45 Appendix H Beneficial Use Designations for Certain Limited Areas of
Groundwater. _ __
8. Oklahoma Statutes, ODEQ will file the deed notice upon completion of construction at
each individual property requiring engineering controls, 27A §2-7-123(B).
50
-------
9. Oklahoma Solid Waste Management Act and Management of Solid Waste, the design
and construction of the repositories and covers for fine tailing ponds in the remedy will
comply with established requirements, 27A O.S. §2-10-101 et seq.» Title 252 OAC,
Chapter 515.
Location-Specific Requirements:
1. National Historic Preservation Act requirements to minimize effects to historic
landmarks, 16 USC 470, et. Scq., and 40 CFR §6.301 (b).
2. Endangered Species Act of 1973 regulations and requirements requiring that endangered
species and their habitat be conserved, 16 USC 1531-1544, 40 CFR §6.302(h).
Newly/Undated Promulgated Standards:
Action-Specific Requirements:
1. Criteria for the Safe and Environmentally Productive Use of Granular Mine Tailings
known as "Chat." Chat Rule. 40 CFR §260 and §278.
2. Special Well Construction and Testing for the Boone Aquifer at the Tar Creek Superfund
Site Ottawa County, Oklahoma. OAC 785:45, Appendix H.
To help ensure that site chat sales continue and that chat is used in a manner that is protective of
human health and the environment, under the OU4 ROD, chat that is used on-site or off-site must
be managed according to the criteria provided in the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part §278, and its
preamble.3 Under the remedy selected in the OU4 ROD, only the uses described in the preamble
(including EPA's June 2007 fact sheet; EPA530-F-07-016B) and the transportation construction
project uses described in 40 CFR Part §278 will be allowed for site chat. The OU4 ROD
provides that chat sales are part of the remedy for OU4 chat (EPA, 2008).
The update to the OWQS was an action item for ODEQ in the previous five-year review report.
The OU4 ROD required that groundwater be restricted via the OWQS Title 785, Chapter 45,
Appendix H. Appendix H states that the Boone aquifer in Ottawa County is a Class II
groundwater source suitable for use as a water supply, for agriculture, and municipal and
industrial processes. In accordance with the OU4 ROD, the ODEQ submitted a proposal to
change the "Beneficial Use Designations for Certain Limited Areas of Groundwater" (OWQS
785 Chapter 45, Appendix II). The changes specifically state "Acidic conditions, mine voids,
and toxic metals (arsenic, lead, and cadmium) may be present in the Boone aquifer." Therefore,
special protective well construction is required to seal off the Boone from the underlying
Roubidoux aquifer. For Boone wells, competent groundwater testing is required for potable and
domestic use; and treatment may be required when groundwater exceeds the MCLs for lead (15
(ig/L), arsenic (10 ug/L), and cadmium (5 |ig/L) (OWRB, 2013).
3 The Chat Rule can be found at 72 Fed. Reg. 39235 (July 18, 2007). Jt can also be found at
http://www.cpa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/chat/.
-------
The ODEQ, OWRB, and federal regulations have not been revised to the extent that the
effectiveness of the remedy at the site would be called into question. No new regulations have
been issued by the State of Oklahoma or the federal government that would call into question the
effectiveness of the remedy.
Changes in Exposure Pathways
There.are no changes to the human health and ecological exposure pathways since completion of
the previous five-year review. There are no new exposure pathways not identified in the RODs.
Future land uses are not expected to change, and agricultural uses and rural residential uses will
remain dominant on the site.
Changes in Toxicity and Other Contaminant Characteristics,
There have been no changes in toxicity characteristics or other contaminant characteristics for
the site that would impact the protectiveness of the remedy.
Until 2012, the CDC's blood lead level of concern in children six years old and younger was
10 jiig/'dL, but that has changed and now the CDC is saying that there is no safe blood lead level
for young children.4 EPA has used a blood lead level of 5 (ig/dL as a benchmark in its recent
analyses.
In May 2013, the cadmium reference concentration (RfC) was updated in EPA's Regional
Screening Levels (RSL) table to 1.0E-05 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) from the United
States Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Interestingly, the cadmium
RfC was reported to be changed to this exact value in 2009 and is documented in the previous
five-year review (EPA, 2010c), The May 2013 change appears to be from an RfC value of 2.0E-
05 mg/m3 established by the California Environmental Protection Agency. Based on the
assessment derived in the previous five-year review report for the change in cadmium's RfC, this
change in toxicity characteristics does not impact the protectiveness of the remedy (EPA,
2013b).
Progress Toward Meeting the RAOs
The well plugging efforts performed for OU1 have been effective at removing this pathway for
migration of acid mine water into the Roubidoux aquifer. Although data indicate that, the
Roubidoux aquifer is impacted locally, primary drinking water standards have not been exceeded
in public water supply wells and the Roubidoux aquifer remains a usable source of drinking
water.
4 See Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children (1991) at p. 7 ("Blood lead levels
at least as low as 10 ng/dL are associated with adverse effects"). Later the CDC revised its position saying that there
was no safe level for lead in young children. See CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
—p^i$ms-inJ~fcow~km,eHxudiExpmwrB^furm^~GMtdfTwr7tRm~
-------
The 0U2 RA has attained the RAOs where remediation has been completed. Data indicate that
the percentage of children residing at the site with elevated blood lead levels has declined
significantly since the OU2 RA began. The OU2 RA is ongoing, and the remaining areas of the
site to be addressed will meet the RAOs once the RA is complete.
The OU4 RA is ongoing and certain RAOs have been met where the remediation has been
completed. The LICRAT buyout and the TRA Trust buyout have removed most children and
adolescents from the site areas with the largest concentrations of source materials (i.e., the areas
with the most chat piles, most chat bases, and most fine tailings deposits), and has prevented
them from coming in direct contact, through ingestion or inhalation, with soils and source
material that exceed 500 ppm.
Water drawn from two rural residential wells completed in the Boone aquifer exceeded the
groundwater lead remediation goal established in the OU4 ROD. These wells were GW2429-4
and GW2429-8. The property owner at GW2429-4 allowed access for confirmation sampling,
but declined access for the remediation described in the ROD. The property owner at GW2429-8
declined access for both confirmation sampling and remediation. Therefore, no RA activities to
address the rural residential wells were conducted (CH2M HILL,-201 la). In addition, another
resident was identified in the site interviews of this five-year review as having contaminated
groundwater. Therefore, it appears that the RAO of preventing site residents from the ingestion
of water from private wells that contains lead in concentrations exceeding the National Primary
Drinking Water Standards is not being met.
The RAO that aimed to prevent terrestrial fauna from coming in direct or indirect contact,
through the ingestion exposure pathway, with cadmium-, lead-, or zinc-contaminated source
materials and soils where concentrations exceed their respective remediation goals of 10-mg/kg,
500-mg/kg, and 1,100-mg/kg goals has been met on properties where TZ soils have been
completely removed. This is only a small part of the site, however. It is not known whether the
ongoing soil amendment pilot study being performed on the Catholic 40 and Distal 6A (see
Figure 3) will meet the this RAO, which is directed at protecting fauna. This determination will
be made at the conclusion of the pilot study.
The RAO aimed at preventing riparian biota including waterfowl from coming into contact, .
through the ingestion exposure pathway, with unacceptable concentrations of cadmium, lead, and
zinc in surface water and sediment by eliminating all discharges of cadmium, lead, and zinc from
source materials to surface water has not been met. Progress is being made towards this goal
through the RA efforts to remove source materials at the site.
4.3 Question C; Has any Other Information Come to Light that Could Call into Question
the Proteetiveness of the Remedy?
The type of other information that might call into question the proteetiveness of the remedy include
potential-future land .use .changes in the^vicmitv^of 4he.^site^(>r-4rther^expected -changes-in-site •
conditions or exposure pathways. No other information has come to light as part of this fifth five-
year review for the site that would call into question the proteetiveness of the site remedy. EPA is
53
-------
presently conducting a remedial investigation (RI) for OU5. including a baseline human health
risk assessment (BHHRA).
4.4 Technical Assessment Summary
The technical assessment, based on the data review, SI, technical evaluation, and interviews
indicates that the RAs selected for the site have been implemented as intended by the DDs.
Various other federal, state, tribal, and local government agencies are conducting studies and
carrying out actions at the site to address the many environmental, health, and safety concerns
associated with the site.
The drinking water supplied from the Roubidoux aquifer meets MCLs and is safe for use as a
drinking water supply. However, sampling data from the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program show local impacts to the Roubidoux aquifer evidenced by exceedances of TLs
developed for specific indicator parameters. The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
has been used to evaluate the effectiveness of the well plugging portion of the OU1 remedy at
preventing acid mine water migration from the Boone aquifer to the Roubidoux aquifer.
Statistical trend analysis of the data collected between 2003 and 2006 indicates that the aquifer is
relatively stable with respect to the analytes measured by sampling, including the indicator
parameters (CH2M HILL, 2007d). No statistical trend analysis was performed on data collected
from 2010-2013 but a cursory review of data presented in the Final Tar Creek After Action
Monitoring Report indicate that iron and sulfate (two indicator parameters) concentrations are
generally increasing in several MWs since 2006 (ODEQ, 2014a).
The OU1 ROD stipulated that EPA would evaluate the need to plug additional abandoned wells
at the site as they were identified. ODEQ, in conjunction with EPA, continues to identify,
evaluate, and plug wells where technically feasible. ODEQ plugged two wells since the last five-
year review. At least nine wells identified as potential candidates for plugging are on restricted
property.
The O&M plan for the diking and diversion channel at the Admiralty site has been updated by
ODEQ. The O&M plan covers annual inspections of the diking and diversion channel, abnormal
occurrence response plans, performance standards, and annual cost estimates of O&M (ODEQ,
2012a). The annual O&M inspections for OU 1 have identified minor issues that have been
rectified by the landowner. The reports state that overall the dike and diversion channel are
functioning as intended (ODEQ, 2015d and ODEQ, 2015e). However, after the closure of RA
activities at OU 1, the O&M plan may need to be updated to include Roubidoux groundwater
monitoring.
Until the fourth five-year review (2010), EPA's five-year review reports found that the fund
balancing ARARs waiver related to surface water, as determined by the OU1 ROD, continued to
be appropriate for the site. The 2010 five-year review, however, found that some of the exposure
assumptions and the potential risks posed to human health and the environment for surface water
and sediments at the site, as stated in the QUI ROD, are no longer valid. Specifically, fish tissue
data collected by ODEQ demonstrated at that time that potential risks to human health exist
through consumption of fish caught from Tar Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand
54
-------
Lake. It was also determined at that time that metals contained within site sediments are
biologically available and pose risks to ecological receptors. Likewise, it was found that the
concentrations of site-related contaminants in Tar Creek surface water continue to exceed the
OWQS, and this is still the case in 2015. The narrative and numerical criteria in the OWQS are
designed to maintain and protect the beneficial surface water use classification of "Fish and
Wildlife Propagation." Under the OWQS there are numerical "Toxic Substance" concentration
limits for surface water with both "acute" and "chronic" standards listed. Under 785 OAC 45
OWQS, "acute toxicity" means the surface water concentration of a toxic substance is such that
it means greater than or equal to 50 percent lethality to appropriate test organisms in a test
sample. Under those same standards, "chronic toxicity" means the surface water concentration of
a toxic substance is such that there is a statistically significant difference (at the 95 percent
confidence level) between longer term survival and/or reproduction or growth of the appropriate
test organisms in a test sample and a control. Teratogenicity and mutagenicity are considered to
be effects of chronic toxicity. In Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the site, EPA stated in
the 2010 five-year review that cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in surface water samples
exceed the OWQS chronic toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations also exceed the acute
toxicity standard. This is still the case in 2015. Finally, the 2010 five-year review report stated
that initial construction costs for the constructed passive wetland southeast of Commerce are
considered reasonable and may indicate that such a system could be an economically feasible
engineered remedy for surface water at the site. For these reasons, in the 2010 fourth five-year
review, EPA stated that the fund balancing ARARs waiver included in the OU1 ROD may no
longer be appropriate and should be reevaluated. Accordingly, EPA has initiated the
R I/feasibility study (FS) for OU5.
The remediation work conducted under the RA for OU2 is still ongoing. In various Ottawa
County residential areas, chat found in alleyways and driveways has been excavated and
disposed at several OU2 repositories or at the CMR. EPA has continued to address any
remaining properties that may require remediation due to the presence of chat or contaminated
soils with concentrations of lead above the remediation goals established in the OU2 ROD. In
April 2015, EPA entered into a cooperative agreement with ODEQ under which ODEQ will
address the remaining aspects of the OU2 RA. Some of the repositories used for the disposal of
contaminated soils from OU2 have been closed in accordance with the requirements of the OU2
ROD, and deed notices have been filed on the properties (except for the County Repository,
which is still in the process of being closed).
In addition, the OCLPP carried out by the Ottawa County Health Department in conjunction with
the OSDH has provided childhood lead poisoning prevention education through community and
tribal health fairs, Head Start and child care programs, and community organizations and events.
The OU2 RA activities and the OCLPP have worked together to create significant reductions in
blood lead levels of children in Tar Creek and Ottawa County. Until 2012, the CDC's blood lead
level of concern in children six years old and younger was 10 fig/dL, but that has changed and
now the CDC is saying that there is no safe blood lead level for young children.5 EPA has used a
y5eerCenters for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children (1991) at p. 7 ("Blood lead levels
at least as low as 10 Hg/dL are associated with adverse effects"). Later the CDC revised its position saying that there
was no safe level for lead in young children. See CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in "Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of
55
-------
blood lead level of 5jj.g/dL as a benchmark in its recent analyses. In Ottawa County, the
percentage of children with blood lead levels that exceed 5 fig/dL has decreased from 11.6
percent to 3.7 percent from 2007 to 2014. The 3.7 percent calculated for 2014 is slightly higher
than the average for Oklahoma (2.4 percent) (OSDH, 2015). However, the blood lead data
collected from children demonstrated that the OU2 RA has been effective.
The voluntary relocation performed by LICRA'l in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, was completed in
2011. The voluntary relocation performed by the TRA Trust in Treece, Kansas, was completed
in 2012. The voluntary relocation removed most of the residents from the most impacted areas at
the site, reducing the risk of exposure to site contaminant s. A total of 628 residences, 74
businesses, and 125 renters were relocated from impacted areas to the surrounding communities.
Chat sales will continue to remove source materials from the site, limiting the volume of chat
that will have to be addressed as part of the OU4 RA and limiting the land area that will be
restricted as part of the OU4 RA. To date, 309 ,787 tons of chat and developmental rock have
been sold to nearby chat processors.
The OU4 ROD calls for ODEQ to restrict groundwater under the authority of the OWQS Title
785, Chapter 45, Appendix H. Appendix H states that the Boone aquifer in Ottawa County is a
Class II groundwater source suitable for use as a water supply for agriculture, and municipal and
industrial processes. This information is amended with a remark stating "Toxic metals, special
well construction required." However, the method of special well construction is not specified,
nor is any statement made regarding how the toxic metals are to be discovered or addressed if
they are found in water (EPA, 2008). In accordance with the OU4 ROD, the ODEQ revised the
"Beneficial Use Designations for Certain Limited Areas of Groundwater" (OWQS 785 Chapter
45, Appendix H). The changes generally state that special well construction is required to obtain
water for potable use and that groundwater testing is required to meet potable use standards for
lead, arsenic, and cadmium (OWRB, 2013).
In September 2014, EPA and OSRTI finalized the RAO Report prepared for OU4 and OU1. In
the report, several optimization opportunities are outlined for OU1 and OIJ4. For OU1 the
optimization team recommended that all efforts be continued to protect the Roubidoux aquifer
including; plugging wells, ceasing fine injections into the Boone aquifer, and monitoring the
Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 2014d).
Recommendations identified as a priority by the optimization report for OU4 include prioritizing
remedial activities based on COC loading rates and to stop the loading of COCs to the watershed
and riparian areas. The main contributors to loading rates are the seeps from the mines, and from
the chat piles and chat bases adjacent to surface water. For this reason, stabilizing these seeps
from chat piles/bases and mines should be a primary objective. In addition, steps should be taken
to prevent additional surface erosion and storm water runoff from chat piles and chat bases
bordering surface waters (EPA, 2014d).
Primary Prevention " (November 26, 2013) ("CDC will emphasize that the best way to end childhood lead
poisoning is to prevent, control or eliminate lead exposures. Since no safe blood lead level in children has been
identified, a blood lead "level of concern" cannot be used to define individuals in need of intervention.".)
56
-------
EPA has begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of contaminated soils,
EPA is adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in soil, making them less
bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue excavation of
contaminated TZ soil. It is hoped that more topsoil may be preserved by adding phosphate-
containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an objective of the pilot study is to
reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable levels while decreasing the volume of TZ soils being
excavated and disposed at the CMR (EPA, 2014d).
5.0 Issues
Table 5 summarizes the current site issues.
57
-------
Table 5; Issues Identified During the Fifth Five-Year Review
Issues
Affects Current
Protectiveness
Affects l-'iitiM-c
Protectiveness
ODEQ research has found references to abandoned wells thai need to be
assessed to determine whether these wells should be plugged (this issue is
carried over from the fourth five-year review). The OU1 ROD recognized
that additional abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might
be identified after completion of the OU 1 RA. The ROD stated that the
need to plug additional wells would be evaluated as wells were identified.
The existence of the wells, which were found by ODEQ's research in
historical documents, has not been verified, Fieldwork will be necessary to
verify the existence of these wells and to determine whether they are
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and are in need of plugging.
No
Yes
While significant progress has been made, and 2,940 residential properties
have been addressed, there is work remaining before the OU2 RA is
complete (this issue is carried over from the fourth five-year review).
Residential yard remediation has been completed in the towns of Afton,
Fairland, Narcissa, Peoria, Miami, Wyandotte, Picher, Quapaw, North
Miami, Commerce, and Cardin. EPA continues to take calls from Ottawa
County residents for residential yard remediation. The next five-year
review should consider whether OU2 can be deleted from the NPL. This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a partial deletion of the site.
No
Yes
An assessment of the surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek should
be completed to verify if a human health or ecological threat exists (this
issue is carried over from the fourth five-year review), The third and fourth
five-year reviews recommended that the current surface water and sediment
data for Tar Creek be evaluated to verify that no threat to human health
exists in Tar Creek,
No
Yes
The soil cover at the Hockerville subsidence area is settling, has been
vandalized, and is in need of repair. The Hockerville subsidence area was
filled with construction and demolition debris in 2012. During the SI,
which was part of this five-year review, the soil cover was found to have
visible damage that was due to general settling of the cap, and also due to
vandalism in the form of tire tracks made by ATVs,
No
No
The CMR. which was constructed to handle OU4 related source material,
requires general maintenance. Engineering options for preventing water
from seeps from entering Tar Creek should be evaluated.
No
No
ODEQ should evaluate the need to continue the groundwater monitoring
program under state-funded OU 1 O&M. EPA intends to work toward
completing RA activities at OU1 after well plugging is complete.
No
No
EPA has begun the OU4 soil amendment pilot studies based on the
recommendation of the September 2014 RAO report.
No
No
58
-------
6.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Table 6 provides recommendations to address the current site issues.
59
-------
Table 6
Recommendations to Address Current Site Issues
Issue
Ke(.,i)fiimcndali(fn<>''Fi)l|{>vi-lTp Actions
Party
Responsible
(hcrsight
Ayencv
Milcsiont
Date
Follow-Up
Actions: Affects
Prntcctiveness
(Y/N)
Current
Future
ODEQ [research lias found references to
abandon.
determinje
plugged
The RO
addition
were ide
which w
historica
Fieldwor
existence
;d wells that need to be assessed to
whether these wells should be
(this issue is carried over from the
fourth f ve-year review). The OU1 ROD
recognized that additional abandoned wells
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer might be
identified after completion of the OU1 RA.
JD stated that the need to plug
wells would be evaluated as wells
Aitified. The existence of the wells,
vere found by ODEQ's research in
documents, has not been verified,
tic will be necessary to verify the
of these wells and to determine
whether they are completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer ahd are in need of plugging.
ODEQ shall undertake actions to determine
whether the wells that ODEQ found in the
literature actually exist, and evaluate whether
it is necessary to plug these wells. Each well
location found in the literature should be
investigated, located, assessed, and if
necessary and technically feasible, plugged in
accordance with the Oli 1 ROD. Since the last
five-year review, ODEQ has plugged two
wells.
ODEQ
FPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
While significant progress has been made,
and 2,94!) residential properties have been
addressed, work remains before the OU2 RA
is complete (this issue is carried over from
the fourtl five-year review). Residential yard
remediation has been completed in the towns
of Afton, Fairland, Narcissa, Peoria, Miami,
Wyandotte, Picher, Quapaw, North Miami,
Commerce and Cardin. EPA continues to
take calls from Ottawa County residents for
residential yard remediation. The next five-
year review should consider whether OU2
can be deleted from the NPL. This deletion of
OU2 from the NPL would be a partial
deletion of the site.
ODEQ shall undertake remaining actions to
complete the OU2 RA. Currently, EPA
operates a telephone hotline for Ottawa
County residents to request soil sampling. The
next five-year review should consider whether
OU2 can be deleted from the NPL. This
deletion of OU2 from the NPL would be a
partial deletion of the site.
ODEQ
EPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
60
-------
Issue
Recommendations/Follow-Up Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Date
Follow-l.'p
•\ctions: Affects
Protect i von ess
(Y/N)
Current
Future
An assess
sediment
complete*
eeologica
over froni
third and
recomme;
and sedin
to verify 1
in Tar Cri
mcnt of the surface water and
data for Tar Creek should be
to verify if a human health or
threat: exists (this issue is carried
the fourth five-year review). The
fourth five-year reviews
ided that the current surface water
ent data for Tar Creek be evaluated
hat no threat to human health exists
ek.
EPA should complete the evaluation of
current surface water and sediment data for
Tar Creek and other site streams to verify that
no unacceptable risks to human health and the
environment exist in Tar Creek and the other
streams. Numerous studies of the site have
been conducted over the past decade. These '
studies have collected surface water and
sediment data in Tar Creek and other site
streams. EPA should perform a data gap
analysis to determine whether gathering
additional surface water and sediment data is
necessary. If EPA finds that additional surface
water and sediment data are needed, EPA
should collect enough additional data to
determine whether there are risks to human
health and the environment associated with
exposure to surface water and sediments in
streams of the site.
EPA
EPA
9/30/2020
N
Y
The soil c
area is set
need of re
area was:
demolitio
inspectior
review, th
visible da
settling O:
in the forr
over at the Hockerville subsidence
ding, has been vandalized, and is in
pair. The Hockerville subsidence
tiled with construction and
i debris in 2012. During the site
, which was part of this five-year
e soil cover was found to have
nage that was due to general
the cap, and also due to vandalism
i of tire tracks made by ATVs.
ODEQ should repair the cover at the
Hockerville subsidence area. Additional soil
should be added to repair the soil cover and
the cover grade should be re-established. EPA
Cooperative Agreements with ODEQ and the •
Quapaw Tribe includes repository O&M.
ODEQ
EPA
9/30/2017
N
N
The CMR
OU4 relat
maintenar
, which was constructed to handle
sd source material, requires general
ce. Engineering options for
ODEQ and the Quapaw Tribe should conduct
general maintenance at the CMR. EPA
Cooperative Agreements with ODEQ and the
Quapaw Tribe includes repository operations
ODEQ/
Quapaw
Tribe
EPA
9/30/2017
N
N
61
-------
-
Issue
I
. , j,
' ; !
Recommendation^-FolIow-lp Actions
Party
Responsible
Oversight
Agency
Milestone
Oate
Follow-Up
Actions: Affects
Protectiveness
(Y/N)
Current
Future
preventi:
Tar Cree
ig water from seeps from entering
< should be evaluated.
and maintenance. The CMR has received
source material from distal properties as part
of the OU4 RA since 2010 and is at
approximately 20 percent capacity.
ODEQs
the groui
state fijn
work te«
OU1afte
lould evaluate the need to continue
ldwater monitoring program under
3ed OU1 O&M. EPA intends to
'ard completing RA activities at
r well plugging is complete.
ODBQ should complete an evaluation of the
need to continue the groundwater monitoring
program under state-funded OU1 O&M and
revise the O&M plan if necessary.
ODEQ
ODEQ
9/30/:
020
N
N
EPA has
pilot stuc
the 2014
begun the OU4 soil amendment
lies based on the recommendation of
RAO report.
EPA will develop the short and long term
performance standards and metrics to measure
and determine protectiveness.
EPA
EPA
9/30/2
020
N
N
62
-------
7.0 Proteetiveness Statement
The remedy at OU1 is protective of human health and the environment with respect to
groundwater. With respect to surface water, the remedy at OU 1 does not meet ARARs. but those
ARARs have been waived under 40 CFR § 300.430(1 )(i)(C)(6).
The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date at residential yards and at areas
frequented by children (i.e., HAAs) have adequately addressed all exposure pathways in those
yards and HAAs that could result in unacceptable risks in these areas. There are approximately
19 residential yards that are currently scheduled to be sampled to determine if remediation will
be required, and EPA estimates that it will take one year to complete remediation if necessary for
the residential yards. ODEQ will continue to evaluate additional residential properties and HAAs
as they become known and assess the need for sampling and remediation under a Cooperative
Agreement.
The remedy at OU3 is protective of human health and the environment.
The remedy at OU4 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment upon
completion. In the interim, remedial activities completed to date have adequately addressed all
exposure pathways that could result in unacceptable risks at the smelter site, at all rural
residential yards, at the following chat piles; CP058, CP059, CP088, CP091, CP092, CP093,
CP093-S1, CP093-S2, CP093-S3, CP093-S4, CP093-S5, CP094, CP094-S1, CP097, CP098,
CP099, CP 100, CP10L CP 102, CP103, CP104, and CP105; at the following chat bases: CB011,
CB044, CB046, CB048, CB049, CB053, CB143, CB146, CB147, CB156, CB157, CB2I6,
CB219, CB221, CB222, CB223, CB230, CB231, CB232, CB233, CB234, CB235, CB236,
CB237. CB238, CB239, CB240, CB241, CB241-S1, CB241-S2, CB242, and CB243; and at the
following fine tailings deposits: FT063. There are 83 chat piles, 213 chat bases, and 62 fine
tailings deposits that still must be addressed, and EPA estimates that it will take 30 years to
complete this work.
EPA has begun the RI/FS process at OU5 and has not completed a BHHRA or a baseline •
ecological risk assessment (BERA) at this date; consequently, no proteetiveness determination
can be made.
Well plugging called for in the selected OU1 remedy addressed the primary route of potential
human exposure by protecting the Roubidoux aquifer, and, in this way. preventing the possibility
that hazardous substances would be ingested in drinking water drawn from the Roubidoux.
EPA/ODEQ has plugged and abandoned 85 wells as part of the OU 1 remedy. Sampling data
indicate that the Roubidoux aquifer continues to meet all health-based primary drinking water
standards. Exceedances of secondary drinking water standards for iron and sulfate at four wells
have been identified. Secondary drinking water standards are aesthetically based values. The
previous five-year review established that some of the exposure assumptions and the potential
were described in the OU 1 ROD are no longer valid (EPA, 2010c). Fish tissue data collected by
ODEQ demonstrate that risks to human health exist through consumption of fish caught from Tar
63
-------
Creek, the Spring and Neosho Rivers, and Grand Lake (ODEQ, 2008b), Metals contained within
site sediments are biologically available and pose risks to ecological receptors (MacDonald, et
al., 2009), In Tar Creek, Lytle Creek, and Elm Creek at the Tar Creek Site, EPA found that
cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations in surface water samples exceed the OWQS chronic
toxicity standard, and zinc concentrations also exceed the acute toxicity standard. With the
exceptions noted above for OU1, the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program, and O&M
activities for the site are all protective for the short and long terms.
The remedy at OU2 is expected to be protective of human health and the environment in all areas
where remediation has been completed. There have been 2.940 properties remediated during the
OU2 RA and during the removal actions that preceded the RA. Remaining properties in need of
remediation are being evaluated. The RA for OU2 is ongoing and is scheduled to be completed
by the next five-year review. Human health and the environment are being protected by the
remedy for OU2,
The action implemented during the removal action for OU3 is protective of human health and the
environment. The laboratory chemicals left at the former Eagle-Picher Office Complex were
removed from the site and properly disposed.
The RA for OU4 is currently ongoing. The remedy at OU4 is expected to be protective of human
health and the environment upon completion, and, in the interim, exposure pathways that could
result in unacceptable risks are being controlled. The LICRAT voluntary relocation in Picher,
Cardin, and Ilockerville, Oklahoma, was completed in 2011. The voluntary relocation in Treece,
Kansas, was completed in 2012, under a Kansas trust—the TRA Trust. Chat sales continue at the
site. Appendix H of the OWQS 785 OAC 45 was amended in order to limit the use of
groundwater from the Boone aquifer. RA on three rural residential properties, a smelter site, and
multiple distal groups (which include chat piles and chat bases) has been completed. EPA has
begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of contaminated soils, EPA is
adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in soil, making them less bioavailable.
This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue excavation of contaminated TZ
soils. It is hoped that more topsoil may be preserved by adding phosphate-containing soil
amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an objective of the pilot study is to reduce metals
bioavailability to acceptable levels while decreasing the volume of TZ soils being excavated and
disposed at the CMR (EPA, 2014d).
EPA is presently conducting an RI for OU5. No OU5 remedy has been selected.
8,0 Next Review
The next five-year review, the sixth for the site, should be completed during or before September
2020.
64
-------
Appendix A: Existing Site Information
1.0 Site Chronology
A chronology of significant site events and dates is included in Table 7. Sources of this
information are listed in Appendix B.
Table 7: Chronology of Site Events
EVENT
DATE
Lead and zinc mining activities began in the Picher field of the Tri-State
Mining District
Early 1900's
Mining activities ceased in the Picher field.
1970's
Acid mine water began flowing to the surface and draining into Tar
Creek,
November 1979
Governor of Oklahoma appointed the Tar Creek Task Force to
investigate the environmental impacts associated with the acid mine
drainage.
June 1980
First investigations conducted by several government agencies under the
Tar Creek Task Force to assess the environmental impacts associated
with the acid mine drainage at the site.
1980 and 1981
The Tar Creek site is proposed to the National Priorities List (NPL).
July 27, 1981
Report submitted to the Tar Creek Task Force documenting the impacts
of acid mine drainage within the Tar Creek basin.
October 1981
EPA signs a Cooperative Agreement with the OSDH to conduct the
RI/FS for OU1.
June 16, 1982
The Remedial Investigation for OU 1 is conducted.
July 1982-March 1983
The Feasibility Study for OU1 is conducted.
May-December 1983
The Tar Creek site is formally added to the NPL.
September 8, 1983
A ROD for OU1 is signed. The selected remedy included surface water
diversion and construction of dikes at 3 locations, plugging abandoned
Roubidoux wells, and a 2 year after action monitoring program to
evaluate the effectiveness of the selected remedies.
June 6, 1984
The EPA sends RD/RA notice letters to 7 companies and 8 individuals as
PRPs to allow them to complete the RD/RA for OU 1.
June 15,1984
The OWRB lowers the designated use of Tar Creek to habitat limited
Fishery and secondary recreation water body.
1985
RA construction for OU 1 is completed.
December 22, 1986
A two year surface and ground water monitoring program is
implemented by the OWRB to assess the effectiveness of the OU1
remedy.
1987 - 1988
EPA signs a referral to the US Department of Justice to implement cost
recovery against 7 companies identified as PRPs.
December 30, 1987
The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program is begun at the site by
the OWRB to assess potential impacts of acid mine water on the
Roubidoux Aquifer.
1991
EPA enters into a Consent Decree with 6 PRPs to recover costs related to
the Rl/FS, ROD, and emergency response actions related to OU I.
June 10,1991
US Public Health Service's Indian Health Service notifies EPA by letter
that 34% of children rontinelv tested near the Tar Creek site have blond
January 21, 1994 ¦
lead levels that exceed the CDC's level of 10 ng/dL.
EPA completes the First Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek. Site. The
First Five-Year Review recommends continuing the Roubidoux
April 1994
65
-------
JEVENT
DATE
Groundwater Monitoring Program. Also, the creation of a second OU is
recommended to address human health concerns related to mining
wastes.
EPA conducts sampling at the Tar Creek site in support of a Baseline
Human Health Risk Assessment and RI/FS for the residential portion of
OU2.
August 1994 - July 1995
EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to address lead contaminated soils at High Access Areas.
August 15, 1995
EPA issues notice to the PRPs and DOI providing them the opportunity
to conduct or finance the removal action at the High Access Areas.
August 25, 1995
EPA conducts removal response action at HAAs.
September - December 1995
EPA issues Special Notices to PRPs providing them the opportunity to
undertake the RI/FS/RD for the residential portion of OU2.
November 17,1995
EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to address lead contaminated soils at 300 residential properties.
March 21, 1996
Remediation of HAAs and residences conducted as a removal response
action by the USAGE.
June 1996 - December 1997
EPA issues the Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment for OU2. It
indicates that lead in soil is the primary contaminant of concern and oral
ingestion of soil is the primary exposure route of concern.
August 1996
EPA issues R! report for residential portion of OU2.
January 1997
EPA issues FS report for residential portion of OU2.
February 1997
A ROD for OU2 is signed. The selected remedy included excavation of
soils in residential yards contaminated with lead above 500 ppm down to
a depth of 18 inches, replacement of the contaminated soil with clean
backfill, and disposal of the contaminated soil in an on-site repository.
August 27, 1997
Removal action for remediation of the High Access Areas and residential
yards continues as a Remedial Action conducted by the USAGE.
January 1998
EPA enters into cooperative agreements with the ITEC, Quapaw Tribe,
and ODEQ to provide funding for RI/FS activities for nonresidential
portions of OU2.
1998 & 1999
EPA issues an action memorandum authorizing a removal response
action to remove laboratory chemicals stored at the Eagle-Picher Office
Complex in Cardin, Oklahoma, and designates this response as OU3.
March 2, 2000
EPA conducts the removal response for OU3. EPA determines that No
Further Action is warranted to address OU3.
March 28 - May 23, 2000
The EPA completes the Second Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek Site.
April 2000
The USAGE completes remediation of the 1,300th residential property
under the RA for OU2. The USAGE work for OIJ2 is completed. The
EPA hires the RACs contractor to continue the residential yard
remediation work for the OU2 RA.
July 2000
The ODEQ issues report documenting results of the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program for OU1.
September 2002
The EPA, USAGE, and DOI sign a Memorandum of Understanding for
the Tar Creek site.
May 1,2003
The ODEQ continues the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program
based on recommendation from their May 2003 report.
November 2003
An AOC is signed with the DOI and 2 mining companies to conduct the
RI/FS for OU4.
December 9, 2003
The ODEQ plugs 5 abandoned Roubidoux wells at the site.
April 2004
Thft.P.PA.r.omp1p!tffs ihe ^ijAEfan^faar.Wgywny.c.
September 2005
Field work for the OU4 RI/FS is conducted.
April - October 2005
LICRAT was established and began the voluntary buyout.
July 2006
EPA publishes the RI/FS for OU4.
July 2007
66
-------
" EVENT * ' :
DATE ••
HP A signs the ROD for OU4.
February 20, 2008
EPA begins OU4 RA.
October 2009
Construction of Central Mill Repository begins,
January 2010
EPA signs ESD for OU4 ROD,
April 2010
The EPA completes the Fourth Five-Year Review for the Tar Creek site.
September 2010
LICRAT Buyout Complete under OU4 ROD,
November 2011
Treece Buyout Complete under OU4 ESD,
September 20,2012
ODEQ completes Tar Creek After Action Monitoring Part 2 of
Roubidoux aquifer.
October 2013
EPA proposes to transfer OU2 from EPA lead to ODEQ lead.
July:
EPA proposed completion of remedial action of OU1.
July 2014
Remedial Action Optimization Report completed.
September 2014
EPA completed remediation of 10 Distal packages, the former smelter
property, 4 residences, and construction of the Central Mill Repository
under OU4.
January 2010 - September 2014
EPA completed remediation of 579 properties through implementation of
9 RA projects under OU2.
2009-September 2014
EPA completed remediation of 2,940 total properties under OU2.
September 2014
EPA OU2 Milestone Cleanup Event.
September 2014
RAC Reports submitted.
2009-2014
EPA and ODEQ sign OA for Distal 6a,
April 2015
EPA signed the first CA with the Quapaw Tribe for OU4 RA activities.
April 2015
OU5 RI/FS activities begin.
July ?'!!-
RA Reports for CB223, CB143/CB146/CB147 group, Distal 5, Distal 6,
Distal 7 North, and Distal 7 South approved.
September 2015
67
-------
2.0 Background
This section describes the physical setting of the site, including a description of the land use,
resource use, and environmental setting. This section also describes the history of contamination
associated with the site, the initial response act ions taken at the site, and the basis for each of the
initial response actions, RAs performed subsequent to the initial response actions for each of the
OUs defined for the site are described in Section 3 below.
2.1 Physical Characteristics
The Tar Creek Superfund Site is primarily located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, in the far
northeastern corner of the state (Figure 1). In April 2010, EPA decided to add Treece, Kansas, to
the site. Specifically, EPA decided to relocate the residents of Treece, KS to help prevent
exposure to the source material deposits at the site. The decision to relocate the residents of
Treece, KS was documented in an ESD regarding the OU4 ROD issued in April 2010 (EPA,
2010a). The Tar Creek Superfund Site has no distinct boundaries, but it includes the Oklahoma
portion of the Tri-State Mining District (TSMD) along with other areas in Ottawa County where
mining waste has come to be located. The TSMD is located in the border region of Kansas,
Missouri, and Oklahoma. The Pieher Field was the Oklahoma portion of the TSMD centered on
the town of Picher, Oklahoma. Extensive lead and zinc mining took place in the Picher Field
between the early 1900's and the 1970's. The Tar Creek Superfund Site is about 40 square miles
in size. The principal communities within the mining area include Picher, Quapaw, Cardin,
Commerce, Miami, and North Miami. The residents of Picher and Cardin were relocated under
OU4 and those communities are now generally abandoned. The contamination at the site resulted
from past mining activities. The Cherokee County Superfund Site in Kansas and the Oronogo-
Duenweg and Newton County Superfund Sites in Missouri comprise the Kansas and Missouri
portions of the TSMD (EPA, 1994),
Tar Creek and its primary tributary Lytle Creek comprise the principal drainage system within
the Picher Field, Tar Creek is characterized as a small ephemeral stream with standing pools.
The headwaters of Tar Creek are located in Cherokee County, Kansas (located north of Ottawa
County on the Kansas-Oklahoma border). Tar Creek then flows southward through the Picher
Field between the towns of Picher and Cardin, to the east of Commerce and Miami, and it then
flows to its confluence with the Neosho River, Tar Creek and Lytic Creek drain approximately
53 square miles. Other principal drainage features near the site in Ottawa County include the
Neosho River (located south of the site), the Spring River (located east of the site), and Grand
Lake (located in southern Ottawa County) (EPA, 1994).
The Picher Field (including most of the Tar Creek Superfund Site) is located on the eastern edge
of the Central Lowland Provinces. Eastern portions of the site are located in the Ozark Plateau.
The Central Lowland Province is a nearly flat, treeless prairie. The Ozark Plateau is a broad, low
structure dome centered in southwestern Missouri and northwestern Arkansas. The natural land
surface at the site is mostly flat and gently slopes to the south towards the Neosho River, to the
east towards the Spring River, and to the west towards Elm Creek. However, much of the land
surface has been modified by the mining activities. There are numerous large tailings piles,
composed of primarily limestone and chert, present on the land surface. In addition, numerous
68
-------
collapsed structures from subsidence and cave-ins of mine shafts are also present on the land
surface (EPA, 1984),
Contaminated groundwater at the site occurs within the Boone Formation (also known as the
Boone aquifer). The Boone Formation is composed primarily of limestone, dolomite, and chert,
with lesser amounts of sandstone and shale. Lead and zinc ore were mined from various
members of the Boone Formation. Within the mining area, water quality within the Boone
aquifer is poor due to acidity and high dissolved metals concentrations. The Boone aquifer is not
used as a primary source of drinking water at the site. However, the OU4 RI did identify 13
private residential wells completed in the Boone aquifer that were being used as a source of
drinking water at the site. Of the 13 wells tested during the RI, only two were found to be
impacted above the final remediation goals (Section 4.2, Progress Toward Meeting the RAOs).
The 01)4 ROD includes provisions for these two residences to be provided with an alternate
drinking water supply as part of the 0U4 RA (EPA, 2008). Outside of the mining district, the
Boone aquifer is used as a primary drinking water source. In areas where the Boone Formation
outcrops at the surface, the aquifer is unconfined. Where the Boone Formation is overlain by
confining strata, the aquifer is confined. At the Tar Creek Superfund Site, the Boone aquifer is
both unconfined and confined. In the southern portion of the site, the potentiomctric surface
within the aquifer exceeds the land surface elevation. This results in artesian conditions, and
groundwater discharges from abandoned wells, boreholes, mine shafts, and collapsed structures.
This groundwater is acidic and contains high metals concentrations, and hence it is referred to as
acid mine water or acid mine discharge. This discharge then flows into Tar Creek (EPA, 1994).
Also of interest at the site is the Roubidoux aquifer. The Roubidoux aquifer is composed of
cherty limestone with several sand sequences near its base. The Roubidoux aquifer lies beneath
the Boone aquifer, and the two are separated by 410 feet to 520 feet of limestone and shale of the
Chattanooga Shale, the Jefferson City Dolomite, and the Cotter Dolomite. Where present, the
Chattanooga Shale acts as an aquitard and restricts groundwater flow between the Boone aquifer
and Roubidoux aquifer. The Chattanooga Shale is absent in most portions of the site.
Hydrologieally, the Cotter and Jefferson City Dolomites are considered a part of the Roubidoux
aquifer (ODEQ, 2006b). The Roubidoux aquifer is a major source of drinking water in the area
of the site (EPA, 1994). The cities of Quapaw, Commerce, Miami, and several rural water
districts obtain their water supplies from the Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 1984).
-------
2.2 Land and Resource Use
Land ownership at the Site can be classified as private or Indian-owned. Under an 1833 treaty,
the United States set aside the Quapaw Reserve, located in Ottawa County, Oklahoma, consisting
of approximately 12,600 acres of land. A majority of these lands are individually owned allotted
lands with 'restrictions against alienation.' These lands are managed under the supervision of the
United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (B1A) (B1A, 2005).
Due to the size of the site, land use is varied. The site encompasses residential, commercial, and
industrial areas within the towns, while most land use outside of towns is agricultural (EPA,
1997). Approximately 19,500 people lived in the mining area or close proximity to the mining
area (EPA, 2008). Tar Creek flows approximately through the center of the site, and it discharges
into the Neosho River south of the site. The Neosho River discharges into Grand Lake in
southern Ottawa County. Groundwater under the site is found within both the Boone aquifer and
Roubidoux aquifer. The Boone aquifer at the site is not currently used as a drinking water
supply, but there are some private wells completed within the Boone aquifer. The Roubidoux
aquifer is regionally used as a water supply (EPA, 1994).
2.3 History of Contamination
Lead and zinc mining activities first began at the site in the early 1900's. During the early mining
period, most mining was conducted by small operators on 20 to 40 acre tracts. Each operator
conducted their own mining, drilling, and milling activities (EPA, 1984). Mining activities
occurred within a 50 to 150 foot thick ore bearing zone within the Boone Formation. The
maximum depth of mining was approximately 385 feet below ground surface. Mining was
accomplished using room and pillar techniques. To remove the ore, large rooms, some with
ceilings as high as 100 feet, were connected by horizontal tunnels known as drifts. Pillars were
left within the rooms to support the ceilings (EPA, 1994). The lead and zinc ores were milled '
locally and generally sent to locations outside of Ottawa County for smelting (except for the
small smelter that operated in Hockerville, OK). Rapid expansion of mining activities occurred
during the 1920's, and mining activities reached their peak around 1925. Each mine holding
usually had its own mill. During the 1930's, large central mills came into operation, and most
mining operations ceased operating their own mills. During the peak of mining activities,
130,410 tons of lead and 749,254 tons of zinc were produced annually. Large scale underground
mining activities ended in 1958 (Brown and Root, 1997). Smaller mining operations continued in
the Picher Field through the 1960's, and all mining activities at the site ceased in the 1970's
(EPA, 2000b).
Zinc smelting operations were not known to have occurred in the Tar Creek area. Lead smelting
of the material mined in the Tar Creek area was dominated by the Eagle-Picher Company, which
operated a smelter in nearby Joplin, Missouri. However, the Ontario Smelting Company did
operate a lead smelter near Hockerville, Oklahoma. Ontario Smelting Company operated this
smelter from 1918 until 1924. The smelter was then purchased by the Eagle-Picher Company,
who operated the smelter until the early 1930?s, when the smelting operations ceased. There
were no other smelting operations known to have occurred in the Tar Creek area (USAGE,
2002).
70
-------
Groundwater infiltration into the mines was a continual problem. This groundwater inflow was
controlled through the use of pumps (EPA, 1984). When mining operations ceased, it is
estimated that underground cavities with a volume of 100,000 acre-feet (161,000,000 cubic
yards) had been created. In addition, approximately 100,000 exploratory boreholes were located
within the Picher Field, mostly in Oklahoma. 1,064 mine shafts existed within the Oklahoma
portion of the mining district. In addition, numerous water wells, used for milling operations,
were abandoned (EPA, 2000b).
During the active mining period, large scale pumping had created a large cone of depression,
effectively dewatering the Boone aquifer in the mining area. Exposed sulfide minerals, primarily
marcasite and pvrite (both iron sulfide), were oxidi/.ed by exposure to the moist air in the mines.
When mining activities ceased, pumping was also ceased, and the abandoned mines began to
flood. The oxidized sulfide minerals were now much more soluble in water. As the mines filled
with groundwater, the oxidized sulfide minerals began to dissolve, generating acid mine water.
The acid mine water then reacted with the surrounding rock, and many of the metals present
began to leach from the rock into the groundwater. As a result, the acid mine water contained
high concentrations of zinc, lead, cadmium, sulfate, and iron (EPA, 1994).
In addition to the acid mine water, the mining activities at the site resulted in the accumulation
on the ground surface of mining wastes. Large volume tailings piles (known as 'chat'), some as
high as 200 feet, were left at the site. Many of the tailings piles are still present across the site,
mostly around the towns of Picher and Cardin. In addition, numerous abandoned floatation
ponds filled with fine sediments from milling and chat processing operations are also present at
the site (EPA, 2008).
Three general types of mining wastes are present at the site. 'Development' rock is large
diameter (4" to 2') rock that was generated during the opening of mine shafts or drifts.
Development rock generally poses no contamination problem. 'Chat' is mine tailings from the
milling process. Chat contains a mixture of gravel (typically 3/8" in diameter) and finer-grained
materials. Fine tailings or "fines" are the fine-grained sediments collected in the flotation ponds
(EPA, 2000b). The fine tailings present in chat and flotation ponds typically pose an
environmental concern.
In March 2004, the chat piles at the site contained approximately 51.2 million tons of waste
(AA TA, 2005). The chat has historically been used as a source material for the concrete and
asphalt industries and as a gravel source. Other uses of the chat have included railroad ballast,
sandblasting and sandbag sand, roadway, driveway, alleyway, and parking lot aggregate, general
fill material in residential areas, and impact absorbing material in playgrounds. Sales of chat
have been a significant source of income in the local area. Based on estimates of historical aerial
photographs, less than 50 percent of the original volume of chat remains in the area. The fines
were collected into flotation ponds as part of the gravity separation milling process. Most of the
ponds have since evaporated and are now dry. An inventory conducted in 2005 as part of the
Remedial Investigation (RI) for OU4 identified 83 chat piles occupying 767 acres with 31
iiiiuiuii tuoiv yeuub oi iiuiic vvaM^-aiiu -dHO ciidi Dabcs luiirici piichj occupying z.>v fy acres
with an estimated 6.7 million cubic yards mine waste. Fine tailings generated from milling and
71
-------
washing chat were found in 63 ponds occupying 820 acres and totaled approximately 9 million
cubic yards of mine waste (EPA, 2008).
Historical mining activities within the TSMD have also contaminated sediments at the Tar Creek
Superfund Site. An Advanced Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) performed
in 2009 documented exceedances of site specific toxicity thresholds for sediments in Spring and
Neosho River basins (MacDonald et al., 2010). This study indicated that contaminants of
potential concern (COPCs) present in surface water, sediments, pore water, and soils within
riparian and aquatic habitats posed a potential risk to ecological receptors at the site. The
assessment indicated that exposure to metals in sediments poses moderate to high risks to benthic
invertebrates at approximately 45% of the locations sampled during the study, including portions
of Tar Creek and Lytic Creek (MacDonald et al., 2010).
2.4 Initial Response
By 1979, the abandoned mines had become completely flooded due to groundwater infiltration
and due to surface water inflow into the abandoned mine shaft openings and subsidence features.
In low-lying areas along the southern portion of the site (near Commerce), the potentiometric
surface exceeded the ground surface. This resulted in the surface discharge of acid mine water
from abandoned boreholes and mine shafts (EPA, 2000b). This surface discharge then emptied
into Tar Creek and other surface water bodies in the watershed. As a result, most of the
downstream biota in Tar Creek was killed. The bottom of the creek became stained red due to
ferric hydroxide deposition, and red stains appeared on bridge abutments and cliffs in the Neosho
River downstream of its confluence with Tar Creek (EPA, 1994).
In 1980, the Governor of Oklahoma established the Tar Creek Task Force to investigate the
effects of the acid mine discharge. The Task Force was composed of various local, state, and
federal agencies. The OWRB was appointed as the lead state agency. The initial investigations
were conducted by the Task Force in 1980 and 1981. The conclusions from the Tar Creek Task
Force's studies included the following:
• There were no significant health risks associated with the air pathway at the Tar Creek
Superfund Site;
• The Neosho River, Spring River, and Grand Lake could be used as a raw water source for
public water supplies;
• The fish from areas sampled in these water bodies were safe for consumption; and,
• Most of the metals present in the acid mine water were precipitated out of the water and into
the sediments in Tar Creek prior to its confluence with the Neosho River. The sediments in
Tar Creek provided a long-term sink for metals that effectively removed them from most
biological processes, and the sediments did not pose a health risk. Other than aesthetic
alteration at the confluence of Tar Creek and the Neosho River, there was no impact on the
Neosho River from the acid mine drainage in Tar Creek.
• The Task Force identified the primary threat at the site as the potential for contamination of
, 1994).
72
-------
The EPA proposed the Tar Creek Superfund Site to the NPL in July 1981, based on information
from the Task Force's investigations. The NPL is the list, compiled by EPA, of uncontrolled
hazardous substance releases in the United States that are priorities for long-term remedial
evaluation and response. On June 16, 1982, the EPA provided funding through a Cooperative
Assistance Agreement with the Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) to conduct a
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the site. The OSDH was the principal
Oklahoma agency at the site for the State of Oklahoma. The OWRB, under an interagency
agreement with the ODSH, conducted the RI/FS for the Site. The site was listed cm the NPL on
September 8,1983. The EPA signed a ROD for the site on June 6, 1984 (EPA, 1994). The
remedy selected and implemented under the ROD is discussed in Section 3.
In 1994, the EPA conducted the first five-year review of the Tar Creek Superfund Site. While
conducting this five-year review, the Indian Health Service in Miami, Oklahoma, notified the
EPA by letter of elevated blood lead levels in children routinely tested as part of their
participation in the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Women, Infant, and
Children (WIC) program. The letter stated that 34% of the 192 children tested had blood lead
levels above 10 micrograms per deciliter (pg/dL), which is the level above which the Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) considered at that time to be elevated in children-6 The letter stated that
although location did not appear to be a factor, a majority of the children did live within 5 miles
of a chat pile (EPA, 1994). Also, EPA Region 7 had been conducting investigations of the
Cherokee County (Kansas), and the Oronogo-Duenweg (Missouri) Superfund Sites. Data
obtained from EPA Region 7's investigations indicated that mine wastes (including chat piles)
represented an unacceptable risk to human health and the environment (EPA, 1994).
In the summary portion of the first five-year review, EPA stated that the studies conducted for
the 1984 ROD did not include a risk assessment. Risk assessment guidance had not been
developed at the time the 1984 ROD was signed, and the primary, emphasis at the Tar Creek
Superfund Site was on groundwater and surface water impacts related to the acid mine water.
The first five-year review recommended that a second OU be designated at the site for the
mining wastes. It was also recommended that studies be undertaken to determine the impacts of
the chat piles and flotation ponds on human health and the environment. The studies were to
include blood lead studies, environmental sampling of High Access Areas (HAAs are frequented
or likely to be frequented by young children such as schools, playgrounds, day cares, and parks),
mapping of all mine wastes, classification of surface mine wastes through environmental
sampling and testing, sampling of leaehate from mine wastes, and sampling of airborne
particulates near mine wastes (EPA, 1994). As a result of the five-year review recommendations,
surface and groundwater contamination at the site became OU1, and impacts related to the
mining waste, including HAAs and residentialproperties, became OU2 (EPA, 2000b).
6 See Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children {1991) at p. 7 ("Blood lead levels
at least as low as 10 ng/dL are associated with adverse effects"). Later the CDC revised its position saying that there
was no safe level for lead in young children. See CDC Response to Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in "Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of
Priwmy Preveruion" (Nmember26; 2013) ("CDC wiltmphastzrrh'at'The terway to tefld •childhood lead ™~
poisoning is to prevent, control or eliminate lead exposures. Since no safe blood lead level in children has been
identified, a blood lead "level of concern" cannot be used to define individuals in need of intervention.".)
73
-------
EPA addressed HAAs and residential areas of OU2 first. From August 1994 through July 1995,
the EPA conducted sampling through its removal program (the removal program is, generally
speaking, the part of the Superfund program generally responsible for conducting emergency and
early response activities) to determine the nature and extent of the contamination in residential
areas of the site. The Phase 1 sampling for 0112 addressed HAAs, and the Phase 11 sampling for
0U2 took place at residences that were inhabited or potentially inhabited by children. Twenty-
eight HAAs and 2,070 residential properties were sampled as part, of the OU2 site assessment.
The data were used to complete the O U2 Baseline. Human Health .Risk Assessment (BHHRA)
and Residential RI Reports. The OU2 BHHRA concluded that lead in soil was the primary
contaminant of concern and that ingestion of contaminated soil was the only exposure pathway
that posed a significant risk to human health. These activities led the EPA to conclude that the
lead contaminated soil in residential areas posed an imminent and substantial endangerment to
human health (EPA, 2000b).
Due to the concerns related to exposures to lead contaminated soil, the EPA issued an action
memorandum on August 15, 1995, that authorized removal response actions at HAAs at the Site
(EPA, 2000b). The removal response action began in September 1995 and was completed in
December 1995. The removal response action for the HAAs was known as the Phase I removal
action. The Phase I removal action was conducted by EPA through its Emergency Response
Cleanup Services (ERCS) contractor, Reidel Environmental Services, and by its Superfund
Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contractor, Ecology and Environment, Inc.
(Washington Group International, 2002).
The removal response action beginning in September 1995 included the excavation of lead
and/or cadmium contaminated surface soils with concentrations exceeding 500 parts per million
(ppm) and 100 ppm respectively from 0 to 12 inches below ground surface (bgs) and 1,000 ppm
lead and/or 100 ppm cadmium from 12 to 18 inches bgs. This means that in areas where the lead
concentration exceeded 500 ppm from 0 to 12 inches bgs and/or the cadmium concentration
exceeded 100 ppm, the soil was excavated. When the lead concentration exceeded 1,000 ppm
and/or the cadmium concentration exceeded 100 ppm in the 12 to 18 inch bgs interval, then soil
from that interval was also excavated. On large properties where unauthorized excavation could
be controlled, such as parks and schools, the criteria were modified to 500 ppm lead and/or 100
ppm cadmium from 0 to 12 inches bgs (the 12 to 18 inch increment was dropped). When
contamination remained above the cleanup levels at 18 inches bgs, a barrier (orange construction
fence material) was place in the bottom of the excavation as a warning that contamination
remained below the barrier. Each excavation was then backfilled with clean soil. Seventeen of
the 28 HAAs that were evaluated required a response action (EPA, 2000b).
The EPA issued an action memorandum on March 21, 1996, that authorized a removal response
action at residences at the Site (EPA, 2000b). This removal response action was known as the
Phase II removal action, and it included both residential properties and HAAs. The EPA entered
into an Interagency Agreement (IAG) with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
to conduct the Phase II removal action. The USAGE contracted with Morrison Knudson
Corporation (MK) to complete the work (USAGE, 2002).
This removal action was conducted in a manner similar to the removal conducted at the HHA
under Phase 1, except that a cleanup level of 500 ppm for lead was chosen. This cleanup level
74
-------
was based on the BHHRA and EPA Region 6 experience at other lead cleanup sites.
Approximately 2,070 residential homes in Picher, Cardin, Quapaw, Commerce, and North
Miami were evaluated. The second five-year review stated that approximately 65% of these
properties contained soil lead in residential yards at concentrations that exceeded 500 ppm in at
least one part of the yard. The Phase 11 removal response activities were conducted from June
1996 until December 1997. The following criteria were used to prioritize the properties:
• Top priority was given to homes with children less than 6 years of age who had blood lead
levels in excess of 10 |ig/dL, and where the soil lead concentrations had been determined to
be a significant contributor to elevated blood lead levels; and,
• The next highest priority was given to homes where the soil lead concentration exceeded
1,500 ppm (EPA, 2000b).
During the Phase I (HAAs) and Phase II (residential properties) removal response actions,
remediation was performed at 20 HAAs, one commercial property (used by the EPA, USAGE,
and their various contractors for on-site support facilities), and 227 residential properties.
Approximately 84,417 cubic yards of soil were removed from these properties during the
removal actions (E&E, 2000, USAGE, 2002, and Washington Group International, 2002).
In September 1998, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma requested assistance from the EPA to
conduct response activities at an abandoned office complex located in Cardin, Oklahoma. The
land was owned by the Quapaw tribe, and had been leased by Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. from
1945 until 1981. A drum containing residual cyanide had been discovered in one of the site
buildings during work conducted in 1998. EPA performed evaluations of the atmosphere inside
this building and determined that no cyanide above background levels were present (EPA,
2000a).
In March 1999, the Inter-Tribal Environmental Council (ITEC) conducted a site reconnaissance
of the Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. office complex property in advance of the completion of an
RI/FS being conducted by the ITEC and Quapaw Tribe for the EPA. During this Site
reconnaissance, 120 containers of laboratory chemicals were discovered at the site. The EPA
conducted a Hazardous Characterization, again at the request of the ITEC, in May and June
1999. These chemicals were inventoried, categorized, segregated, and over-packed in preparation
of future disposal by the BIA. The BIA informed the EPA that it did not have the funding or
expertise to remove the chemicals from the Site (EPA, 2000a).
On March 2, 2000, an action memorandum was issued by EPA approving a time-critical removal
action at the Eagle-Picher Office Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals. This portion of the
Site was designated OU3. The action memorandum determined that the chemicals posed an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment. This
determination was made on the basis that the containers in which the chemicals were stored had
to be placed outside, where they were exposed to the elements. The EPA was concerned that
eventually the containers would deteriorate, releasing the chemicals into the environment (EPA,
2QIKla). —-— — — ——
On March 28, 2000, the emergency removal action was conducted. The laboratory chemicals
were removed from the Site and transported to facilities appropriate for their disposal. The EPA
75
-------
was unable to dispose of some low-level, radioactive uranyl acetate. The EPA remobilized to the
Site on May 23,2000, This material was removed from the site and transported to an off-site
location for treatment and disposal (EPA, 2000c, and EPA 2000d). The EPA determined that no
further action was required in relation to OU3 (EPA, 2004),
On December 9, 2003, the EPA signed an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) with three
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), including the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI),
Blue Tee Corp., and Gold Fields Mining Corporation, to conduct the RI/FS for OU4. Under the
terms of the AOC, the EPA prepared the risk assessments for OU4 based on data collected by the
PRPs and EPA. A three-phased Site Reconnaissance was conducted from March 29 to April 28,
2005. Field sampling and investigations were conducted in May and concluded in October 2005.
The RI/FS reports were issued in July 2007 (EPA, 2008).
During the course of the OU4 investigations, EPA performed a pilot project consisting of several
field studies regarding injection of chat and fine tailings into flooded mine cavities to determine
whether this could be a cost-effective disposal technique. Following the pilot injection, EPA
found that the physical placement of chat and fine tailings in flooded mine rooms does initially
impact mine water; however, the data indicated that the mine water chemistry rapidly begins to
return to pre-placement conditions (EPA, 2008). In another pilot under the RI/FS, the United
States Department of the Interior (DOI), with the cooperation of the Quapaw Tribe, is promoting
responsible chat sales, using Best Management Practices (BMP) to reduce the volume of millions
of tons of mining waste. Both pilots, Indian-owned chat sales and the disposal of chat in mine
cavities, were response action alternatives considered in the OU4 FS (EPA, 2008).
In April 2009, EPA proceeded with OU2 RA activities within Ottawa County aimed at
identifying residents that may not have had an opportunity to participate in past property
remediation programs under OU2. The program identifies properties where landowners wanted
to have their properties sampled and remediated. Due to the large scope of work, the remedial
construction was performed over time through discrete "RA Projects". RA Projects completed
during this program include: (1) South Repository Closure Modifications, (2) Southeast
Commerce Site, (3) Ottawa County Towns RA, (4) City of Miami Ward 3 RA, (5) City of Miami
Phase II RA, (6) City of Miami Phase III RA, (7) Ottawa County RA, (8) Ottawa County Phase
III, and (9) Ottawa County Phase IV, These OU2 RA Projects were completed on properties that
consisted of residential driveways, residential yards, HAAs, public alleyways, parks, and
churches. EPA remediated 579 properties, resulting in the removal of 31,011 cubic yards,
restoring approximately 62.6 acres. This set of OU2 RA projects was completed by September
2014 (EPA, 2013a and EPA, 2014a).
OU4 includes the parts of the Site (both urban and rural) that are not currently used for
residential purposes or which are sparsely used for residential purposes, where mine and mill
wastes and smelter waste have been deposited, stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise come to
be located. OU4 Source Material RA began in October 2009 and is currently ongoing. OU4
addresses the core mining areas of the Site where the largest chat and fines deposits are located,
it also addresses distal areas where the population is sparse and the chat piles are smaller and
generally dispersed. All of these areas have mining, milling, smelting, or other operation related
wastes. The OU4 distal area is divided into three distinct distal areas (Figure 3): (1) Northeast
76
-------
Distal Area, (2) Southeast Distal Area, and (3) Elm Creek Distal Area, Within these distinct
distal areas, source material locations were grouped together to form distal groups where work
can be conducted. There are sixteen (16) distal groups containing numerous chat piles, chat
bases, and fine tailing ponds (Figure 3). The Central Mill Repository was constructed in 2010
and is the final resting place of waste from distal group remediation (CH2M HILL, 2011). To
date, the CMR has received 993,171 tons of chat, 418,349 tons of transition zone soils, 200,082
tons of fine tailings, and 22,698 tons of smelter debris (Table 8).
EPA is presently conducting a Remedial Investigation (Rl) for OU5. No OU5 remedy has been
selected.
77
-------
Table 8: Annual Production Summary
Production Period
Destination: Processor (Reuse), Tons
Destination: Repository, Tons
Destination
Repository, CY
Chat
. Reuse
Woodchips
Development
Rock
Chat
TZ Soils
Fine
Tallin as
Wood/Scrap
Metal/Concrete
Root
bails and
tree
roots
Residential
Soil
Development
Hock
Imported
Gravel
classified
as Dirty
after
removal
from the
site
Smelter
Waste
OU2
Residential
Soil, CY
C
]
uapavr
fribe
^oads,
CY
Commerce
Loads, CY
2010
46940.52
317.61
21653.12
496072,07
303919.39
116562.00
17446,51
2698,35
3556.2S
10053.65
NA
0.00
0.00
NA
0.00
2031
199724.02
0.00
0.00
205989.25
36760.05
50551.10
39086.83
759.03
0.00
0.00
NA
10017.96
7788.20
NA
0.00
2012
2995.19
0.00
0.00
82753.01
34993.68
30016.39
5342.72
346.17
346.17
0.00
NA
12680,23
7071,00
N"A
5796.00
2013
38473.87
o.oo
0,00
! 37058.61
29845.44
2903.03
0.00
461.97
0.00
0.00
899.29
0.00
8849,50
40.00
0.00
2014
0,00
0-00
0.00
71298.37
13830.34
0.00
0.00
13.71
0.00
0.00
287.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Totaf
288133.60 | 317.61
21653.12
993171.31
419348,90
200032.52
61876.06
4279.23
3902.45
10053.65
1187.20
22698.19
23708.70 | .
40.00
5796.00
1
Desti nation; CB123 (Subs'idcscc Feature}, Tods i
C&Q Debris. CY
Hockemille. Tons
IB Hole
j Production Period
RtwtW UbkBqo* «® CB223
1 Oaf. Rw & eewiepmnn Re«t |
To the Rrt>a4<tai)
TZSoS,
j 2010
jZSM
1 ii'X'S.ii 1
6.00
O.00
| 2011
'riflcc ao«J ClPTCtS
j Filled »s
-------
2.5 Basis for Taking Action
The purpose of the response actions conducted at the Tar Creek Superfund Site was to protect
public health and welfare and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous
substances from the site. Discharges of acid mine water from the abandoned mines to surface
water and possible direct migration to the underlying Roubidoux aquifer threatened human
health and the environment. In addition, exposure to lead contamination in residential soils was
determined to be associated with human health risks higher than the acceptable range. The
primary threats that the Tar Creek Superfund Site posed to public health and safety and the
environment were: the potential contamination of water supply wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water (no such contamination has been found to date);
possible direct dermal contact with acid mine water where groundwater discharges at the surface;
severe ecological impacts to Tar Creek (the stream) as a result of the acid mine water discharges;
incidental ingestion of lead contaminated soils; incidental ingestion of drinking water; and
incidental ingestion of fine particles that are interspersed with the larger chat particles, incidental
ingestion of fine tailings materials, and incidental ingestion of smelter wastes in soil (EPA, 1984,
EPA, 1997, and EPA, 2008).
3.0 Remedial Actions
This section provides a description of the remedy objectives, remedy selection, and remedy
implementation for the three OUs (OU1, OU2, and OU4) for which RODs have been signed by
EPA for the site. It also describes the ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) activities
performed at the site in the period since completion of the fourth five-year review. The three
OUs for which RODs have been signed are: (a) QUI (surface water/groundwatcr); (b) OU2
(residential properties and HAAs); and (c) OU4 (chat piles, distal properties, mine and mill
waste, and smelter waste). Two additional OUs have been designated at the site: (a) OU3 (Eagle-
Pieher Office Complex - abandoned mining chemicals); and (b) OUS (sediments and surface
water). OU3 was addressed through a removal action, and the EPA has determined that no
further action is necessary. EPA is presently conducting a Remedial Investigation (Rl) for OUS,
No OUS remedy has been selected yet.
Remedial Action Objectives
The specific remedial objectives of the OU1 RA were:
• Mitigate the potential threat to public health and the environment by preventing
contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water; and,
• Minimize the damage to Tar Creek [the stream] from acid mine water discharges (EPA,
1994),
The specific remedial objective of the OU2 RA was:
• Reduce ingestion by humans, especially children, of surface soil in residential areas
-------
The specific remedial objectives of the OU4 RA are:
• Prevent children and adolescents from coming in direct contact, through the ingestion and
inhalation exposure pathways, with lead contaminated source material where lead
concentrations exceed 500 ppm;
• Prevent terrestrial fauna from coming in direct or indirect contact, through the ingestion
exposure pathway, with cadmium-, lead-, or zinc-contaminated source materials and soils
. where .cadmium, lead, and zinc concentrations exceed their respective remediation goals
of 10.0 mg/kg, 500 mg/kg, and 1100 mg/kg respectively;
• Prevent riparian biota including waterfowl from coming into contact, through the
ingestion exposure pathway, with unacceptable concentrations of cadmium, lead, and
zinc in surface water and sediment by eliminating all discharges of cadmium, lead, and
zinc from source materials to surface water;
• Prevent children from direct contact, through the ingestion and inhalation exposure, with
lead-contaminated soil where soil lead concentrations exceed 500 ppm; and,
• Prevent site residents from the ingestion of water from private wells that contains lead in
concentrations exceeding the National Primary Drinking Water Standards (EPA, 2008),
3.1 Remedy Selection
Three RODs have been issued by EPA for the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The OU1 ROD
addressed the impacts associated with surface water discharges of acid mine water and the
migration of acid mine water from the Boone aquifer to the underlying Roubidoux aquifer. The
ROD for OU2 addressed surface soil contamination in residential areas at the site. The OU4
ROD addressed mining waste including chat piles and tailings ponds, smelter wastes, soils
contaminated by mining and smelter wastes, a limited number of residential properties with lead-
contaminated soils (that were not addressed under OU2), and private residential wells impacted
by site related contaminants. The site has also been addressed through other response actions (the
two removal response actions for OU2 and the removal action for OU3) as described in Section
2.4.
The ROD for OU1 was signed on June 6, 1984, to address the mitigation of surface water and
groundwater discharges of acid mine water to Tar Creek and to prevent the potential
contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer through acid mine water migration from the overlying
Boone aquifer. Elements of OU1 included response actions to address contaminated groundwater
as a result of acid mine water seepage, and actions to address contaminated surface water as a
result of acid mine water discharges (EPA, 1984).
The remedy described in the 1984 ROD for OU1 included the following elements:
• Abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer were to be plugged. Each well was
to be cleared of obstructions. The wells were then to be plugged from the bottom to the
surface using acid resistant cement.
Swface-water4iversioa-ao.d"diking-stru6tures'-wer-e't0'-be-eoa8teueted-around-two-major—
inflow areas to prevent surface water inflow into the abandoned mines. The two inflow
areas were identified as the abandoned mine shafts called Muncie and Big John, These
80
-------
two inflow areas combined were thought to represent 75% of the total surface inflows
into the abandoned mines. It was thought that the elimination of these inflow points
would cause the groundwater levels in the mines to drop and, as a result the amount of
acid mine water discharged to the surface would be reduced or eliminated. It was
predicted that the Admiralty location would become an inflow point after the initial
diking and diversion work was completed, so the ROD allowed for additional diking and
surface water diversion around this location if deemed necessary.
• A surface water and groundwater monitoring program was to be conducted for two years.
The purpose of the monitoring was to assess the effectiveness of the RAs at preventing
contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer and reducing the acid mine water discharges into
Tar Creek.
• A fund-balancing waiver to certain Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) was granted. The waiver was invoked in the ROD declaration
based on the prohibitively high costs that would be associated with other engineered
solutions to address the surface water contamination in Tar Creek, It was determined that
these costs would drain the Superfund and put at risk the EPA's ability to address other
releases under CERCLA and the NCP (EPA, 1984, and EPA, 2000b).
• The ROD stated that future RAs would be required if the selected alternatives did not
adequately mitigate the risk to human health (EPA, 1984).
The ROD for OU2. residential areas, was signed on August 27,1997. This ROD addressed soils
in residential yards and HAAs contaminated with lead (EPA, 1997).
The remedy described in the ROD for OU2 (residential areas) included the following elements:
• Excavation of soils in residential areas and HAAs containing lead with concentrations
greater than or equal to 500 ppm up to a depth of 18 inches. If lead concentrations exceed
500 ppm below 18 inches, a marker consisting of geotextile fabric or other suitable
material would be placed in the excavation prior to backfilling to warn of contamination
below the barrier. Each excavation was backfilled with clean top soil,
• Excavation of obvious hot spots (places where chat contamination was readily observable
at the surface),
• Establishing new vegetation using sod or re-seeding.
• Backfilling of traffic areas and driveways with road base materials.
• On site disposal of excavated materials at a permanent long-term disposal area,
• Institutional controls (ICs) which may include the following:
1. Restrictions and management controls on unsafe uses of mine tailings;
2. Restrictions and management controls on activities that would cause
recontamination of remediated properties;
3. Restrictions and management controls on activities that would contaminate clean
site property with mine tailings;
81
-------
4. Restrictions and management controls intended to prevent future exposure of
children to unacceptable levels of lead in the soil at new residential developments
that are located in areas with high lead levels in soil;
5. Restrictions and management controls on building and construction activities in
order to prevent building and construction practices that would increase exposure
to lead-contaminated soils;
6. Restrictions and management controls on access to contaminated property
through physical barriers (c. g., fencing) or notices (e. g., warning signs);
7. Public health and environmental ordinances and controls related to lead exposure
and management of mine tailings;
8. Placing notices in property deeds regarding contamination;
9. Sampling and analysis of lead sources;
10. Blood lead monitoring;
11. Health education; and,
12. Lead-contaminated dust reduction activities.
• Measures to prevent the recontamination of residential properties, or that would reduce
the potential for recontamination of residential properties included:
1. Vegetating poorly vegetated or unvegetated areas;
2. Capping with soil;
3. Capping with base coarse material or paving;
4. Applying dust suppressants or other dust control measures;
5. Controlling drainage;
6. Consolidation of source materials;
7. Containment of source materials; and,
8. Abating lead sources to prevent releases into the environment that would
recontaminate remediated areas (EPA, 1997).
The OU2 ROD also included several provisions to address lead contaminated soils at the site and
within Ottawa County. The ROD expanded the site to include all portions of Ottawa County that
were impacted by mining wastes, including HAAs outside the mining area and the entire
iloodplain of Tar Creek. The ROD contained a provision to cover or replace chat material in
alleyways, parking lots, roads, driveways, and other such areas located near residences with road
base materials such as gravel or crushed limestone. The ROD called for expanding the use of
physical barriers to restrict access to mining wastes located near residences as deemed
appropriate (EPA, 1997).
82
-------
The ROD for OU2 provided for the establishment of ground cover, such as grass, in bare
contaminated soils at certain residences, located generally outside the mining area but within
Ottawa County. Finally, the ROD stipulated that, at certain residences located generally outside
the mining area but within Ottawa County, where medical monitoring has found that a resident
has elevated blood lead levels close to or above 10 (ig/dL, and where the residential yard is
contaminated with lead at concentrations at or above 500 ppm, the soil would be excavated and
replaced as called for under the selected remedy (EPA, 1997).
The ROD for OU4 was signed on February 20,2008. This ROD addressed source materials (i.e.,
chat, fine tailings, and smelter wastes), rural residential yard soil contamination, transition zone
soil contamination (i.e., the soil under and extending outward from a chat base or a tailings
pond), and contamination in water drawn from rural residential wells. The OU4 ROD stated that
the remedy would be implemented in two phases over a period of 30 years (EPA, 2008).
The remedy described in the ROD for OU4 included the following elements:
Phase 1 of the remedy selected under the OU4 ROD addresses voluntary relocation of residents
in the area shown in Figure 4. Phase 1 also provides for chat sales. Phase 1 addresses source
materials in a manner that reduces the overall footprint of contamination and reduces the need
for land use restrictions, ICs, and O&M.
• Residents located in Picher, Cardin and Hockerville were voluntarily relocated following
the procedures and priorities established by the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation
Assistance Trust (LICRAT) (Residents of Treece, KS were added to the relocation, under
a Kansas trust—the Treece Relocation Assistance (TRA) Trust, in 2010 -see below)
• Chat and chat bases from distal areas, including associated historic chat covered haul
roads and non-operating railroad grades, are being excavated to the underlying native
soil, transported and released to an on-site chat processor or future processing location
located in a previously contaminated area of the site, injected into the mine workings, or
disposed in an on-site repository.
• Transition Zone (TZ) soils (soils-around and underneath source materials) are being
addressed by excavation followed by natural soil rebuilding. [Note: EPA has begun a
pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of contaminated soils, EPA is
adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in soil, making them less
bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to continue excavation of
contaminated TZ soil. It is hoped that more topsoil may be preserved by adding
phosphate-containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an objective of
the pilot study is to reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable levels while decreasing
the volume of TZ soils being excavated and disposed at the CMR (EPA, 2014d).
• Smelter wastes were all excavated and disposed in an on-site repository. Smelter affected
soils were managed in the same manner as transition zone soils.
• Fine tailings are being injected into mine workings or covered in place, with the latter
being the predominant disposal method. The covered fine tailings are being consolidated
to reduce the footprint of the final cover.
83
-------
• Source material in Tar, Lytic, Elm or Beaver Creek or other site waterways, was given
priority under the 0U4 ROD, but, generally speaking, EPA has emphasized cleaning up
the distal areas. The optimization plan that EPA is now following emphasizes addressing
source material in site waterways on a priority basis through either excavation and/or the
installation of a flexible membrane liner, as needed as determined by EPA. As an interim
measure, sheet piling, berms, constructed wetlands, or other engineering controls will be
installed for near-stream source materials to help prevent contamination from migrating
to surface water,,.....'..,,..., •••
• An alternative water supply would be provided to any household where mining-related
contaminants in water drawn from rural residential wells exceed 0.015 milligrams/liter
(mg/L) for lead for rural households. Rural households that were within the area that had
been designated for relocation under the LICRAT relocation program, but which did not
elect to participate in the relocation program, have been included in the households
receiving an alternative water supply (estimated to be two residences).
• Rural residential yard soil that was found to have concentrations of soil lead that exceed
500 ppm has been excavated to a maximum depth of 12 inches, and the excavated area
has been backfilled with clean soil, contoured to promote drainage, and revegetated. This
includes some residential yards that were identified for relocation.
• On-site repositories have been constructed to accept site source materials for final
disposal. On-site repositories will be closed when they reach capacity or at completion of
the RA. Closure will be accomplished by covering the repositories with a soil cover,
contouring to promote drainage, and revegetating the soil cover. (EPA, 2008).
84
-------
Figure 41: LICRAT Buyout Areas
OKlAhCI
LQuapaw
^ Sc-dmmerc^M|
North fjjj
'Mi ami!*
\4T-J L
aJ^tev^raafltW® Qafem Ik,
iy -%, :•••• : ^gifiai&a;. ^&fafe<3^'£e SB tEaf.sagg'irjg
Legend
L1C RAT Buyout Area
Superfuod Area
. r* ,
Figure 4:
LICRAT Buyout
Area
Map Created by Brent Stone
on 5/12/2015
4 Miles
y effort to provide and maintain
usable, and timely information,
a and iffawelwi on tns mop
|y or out of dale and s provided w«h
g that < a not guvartoed to be
». Conclusions drawn from, or
n on the baas of. such data and
0 K
DCttlftkPO
A H 0 M A
-------
Phase 2 of the remedy selected under the OU4 ROD addresses certain source areas that remain
after Phase 1 cleanup activities. These areas may include unmarketable chat bases, tailings
ponds, and chat that remain undisposed and unsold in distal areas of the site. Chat sales will
continue until the last five years of Phase 2.
• The remedy will be reviewed, at a minimum, every five years since hazardous substances
would remain on site with concentrations that exceed concentration levels that allow for
..unrestricted use.and unrestricted .exposure. The remedy will-be reviewed to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. As part of the five-year review, EPA
will evaluate the progress of chat sales. Chat piles and bases remaining after 10 years will
be evaluated for commercial viability. This determination will be made using input from
the chat/land owners, appropriate tribal representatives, and the commercial operators.
• Unmarketable chat piles and bases will be excavated, transported and released to an on-
site chat processor or future processing location in a previously contaminated area of the
site, injected into mine workings, or disposed of in an on-site repository. Where chat/land
owners will not release the unmarketable chat, they will be asked to provide a plan,
including a schedule, for its final disposition consistent with the OU4 ROD. If EPA finds
that the plan or schedule is unacceptable, EPA may take legal action. Scheduled
disposition under the owners' plans must be completed within five years.
• Historic haul roads and non-operating railroad grades that are contaminated will be
managed the same as chat bases.
• ICs and O&M activities will be implemented, as needed as determined by EPA, at
repositories and covered, fine tailings ponds.
• Environmental monitoring will be conducted, as needed as determined by EPA, to test for
contamination in ambient and near source air, surface water, groundwater, and sediment
during remediation activities.
• Other actions included in the selected remedy for OU4 are discussed below.
Chat sales were selected as part of the CERCLA remedy. The OU4 ROD states that although
EPA does not own and will not purchase chat, it will assist chat sales participants. The
responsible sale of chat under the Chat Rule, 40 CFR Part 278, will decrease the amount of chat
on site in a way that brings added benefits to the community while reducing exposure risks.
As part of the OU4 ROD, a watershed-based approach is being taken, including development of
a baseline hydrology model to reflect the existing land uses in the basin and to reflect any rainfall
storage within the source materials. Runoff is expected to increase as the capacity of the soil to
absorb rainfall on site decreases, and the model may be used in the future to manage increased
runoff and stream flow.
Under the selected remedy, ICs include deed notices placed on land parcels that are contained in
the site. Such ICs would notify current and potential future deed holders of the presence of any
•¥^tes ¦left--ett-^iterThe''l€' instrument' to r
pursuant to Oklahoma Statute 27A § 2-7-123(B). An additional IC is to be implemented to
restrict use of groundwater from the Boone aquifer (or shallower) for potable or domestic supply
86
-------
when that water source is impacted with site-related contaminants above the final remediation
goals. The IC instrument for groundwater is to be implemented through the Oklahoma Water
Quality Standards (OWQS) Title 785, Chapter 45, Appendix H (EPA, 2008), Appendix H
currently states that toxic metals are present in the Boone Aquifer and that special well
construction methods and sampling are required within the OU4 boundary due to contamination
in the Boone aquifer.
To ensure that injection of chat complies with Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations
for a mine backfill well, a site-wide hydro geological study was performed (CH2M HILL, 2010).
The study addressed the requirements of the regulations and examined whether there is hydraulic
connectivity between the Picher Field and the Commerce mine workings. The study also
identified strategic subsurface locations for injection in order to maximize the number of
potential injection sites and evaluate the long-term effectiveness of this method.
As part of addressing in-stream source materials, removed source materials will be returned to
the nearby chat piles, chat bases, or tailings ponds from which it appears that they came, as
determined by EPA, prior to remediation of such chat piles, bases or tailings ponds. When in-
stream chat outside of the distal area is returned to its point of origin, the owners of the chat may
sell it or dispose of it as is outlined in the OU4 ROD (EPA, 2008).
In April 2010, EPA issued an ESD describing a change that was made to the remedy selected
under the OU4 ROD, The ESD explains that, consistent with the OU4 ROD, EPA decided to
complete a voluntary relocation of residents in Treece, Kansas as part of the OU4 RA (EPA,
2010a).
3,2 Remedy Implementation
After the ROD for OU1 was issued, the surface water diversion and diking work at the Big John
and Muncie Mine sites proceeded as part of the RA. The diking and diversion work at the
Admiralty Mine site also proceeded. The construction at these three sites was completed on
December 22,1986 (EPA, 1994).
The work to clear and plug the 66 abandoned Roubidoux wells identified in the OU1 ROD began
in September 1985, when IT Corporation was contracted by the OWRB to conduct the work. Of
the 66 identified wells, 4 wells could not be located, 7 wells were found to be shallow (not
completed in the Roubidoux aquifer), 3 wells were still in use, 2- wells had been properly plugged
and abandoned, and access was not granted at one well location. In addition, 2 wells were not
plugged due to high cost, and at 4 of the wells, it was not physically feasible to plug the entire
well, so a cement plug was placed at the floor of the mine workings. The remaining 43 wells
were properly plugged and abandoned (IT, 1985). After completion of the initial work, 17
additional wells were identified. The OWRB contracted with Engineering Enterprises, Inc. to
conduct the additional work. Of the 17 wells, 13 were plugged and abandoned. Two wells were
determined to be shallow vent holes or dewatering wells, and were not plugged. Two wells were
riot plugged due to technical, difficulties. The additional .work..was...eompleted..i.nJOetx)ber1.9.86 —,
(EEI, 1986).
87
-------
Following construction activities at OU1, a two-year monitoring and surveillance program was
conducted to assess the effectiveness of the RA activities at mitigating the acid mine drainage
discharges to Tar Creek and at preventing the migration of the acid mine water to the Roubidoux
aquifer. Surface water flow measurements and water quality data were collected at locations
along and near Tar Creek to determine if the pollutant loading to Tar Creek had changed as a
result of the RA construction activities. Water levels were monitored in the Blue Goose Mine
(considered to be indicative of the water levels within the Boone aquifer and related to the
discharge volumes from the mines to Tar Creek) to determine if the water levels within the
Boone aquifer and the mine workings had decreased. Finally, water quality data were collected
from public water supply wells completed within the Roubidoux aquifer to assess the water
quality after completion of the well plugging activities. These monitoring activities were
conducted in 1987 and 1988. The results of the monitoring and surveillance program were
detailed in a report submitted by the OWRB to the EPA in 1991 and summarized in the first
Five-Year Review Report (EPA, 1994). Further discussion regarding the results of this
monitoring are provided in Section 3.4.
After the OU2 ROD was issued, the removal actions being conducted for the HAAs and
residential properties were transitioned into the RA for OU2. The EPA and the USACE signed
an 1AG in September 1999. The USACE conducted the OU2 Remedial Design RD/RA under the
direction of the EPA. MK was the contractor selected by the USACE to perform the RD/RA for
OU2 (USACE, 2002).
MK began remediation at the site in February 1998. During assessment activities conducted
between 1996 and 2000, approximately 2,774 properties were identified that required assessment
sampling for lead in soils. Of these properties, 2,380 were assessed for lead contamination, and
2,106 exceeded the 500 ppm remediation goal for lead (88% of the assessed properties)
(Washington Group International, 2002). The USACE and MK conducted remediation at 1,300
properties during the RA. These 1,300 properties were the original properties identified by the
OU2 ROD as requiring remediation. The USACE and MK completed the RA for the 1,300
properties identified at the time the OU2 ROD was signed in July 2000. MK and the USACE
demobilized from the site in September, 2000 (USACE, 2002).
After July 2000, the EPA contracted directly with CH2M HILL, Inc. to complete the RA for the
remaining 565 properties still to be addressed at the site. A total of 649 properties were
remediated by CH2M HILL. The remediation efforts at these properties were conducted from
September 2000 to March 2006. This number includes 140 properties administered by the 131 A,
495 additional residential properties, and 14 additional HAAs (7 schools located in Miami, one
school located in Picher. 1 school playground located in Pieher, 4 daycare facilities located in
Miami, and the Mutt Mantle Ball Field in Ottawa County) (CH2M HILL, 2007a). During the
various sampling efforts conducted during this period, certain properties were determined to be
contaminated but the cities that had these properties within their boundaries elected to perform
the remediation work. The City of Afton elected to remediate the Afton Little League Ball Park,
and the City of Fairland elected to remediate the Fairland Little League Ball Parks. The
remediation was accomplished by paving over each of the identified contaminated areas. The
City of Miami completed remediating multiple park properties under an agreement with EPA. In
2005, the City of Commerce, under an agreement with ODEQ, began implementing the
88
-------
remediation of the 98 remaining properties that were located within the city limits. Through
January 2010, more than 2,295 residential properties and HAAs were remediated as part of either
the removal response actions or the OU2 RA (EPA, 2010b).
In April 2009, EPA proceeded with the OU2 RA within Ottawa County. This OU2 RA program
was aimed at identifying residents that may not have had an opportunity to participate in past
property remediation programs under OU2. The goals of the program were to assess and identify
properties in need of remediation and to carry out the needed remediation. This program relied
on public participation, calling on residents to contact EPA and notify EPA of areas that the
residents would like to have remediated. Due to the large scope of work, the RA was performed
over time, through discrete RA projects. Properties cleaned up through this program included
residential yards, residential driveways, public alleyways, and HAAs (EPA, 2013 A).
The City of Commerce, under an agreement with ODEQ, continued implementing the
remediation of properties that were located within city limits. The City of Commerce remediated
approximately 54 properties and excavated 5,796 CY. Properties were backfilled and covered
with sod (Commerce, 2011 and Commerce 2012).
OU2 RA projects began in late 2009 and were completed by September 2014. In all, these OU2
RA projects were responsible for remediating 579 properties, excavating 31,011 CY, and
restoring 62.6 acres (EPA, 2013a and EPA, 2014a).
In April 2015 cooperative agreement, EPA and ODEQ agreed that ODEQ would undertake the
OU2 remedial action, as described in the OU2 ROD, at the remaining OU2 properties it is
estimated that approximately 19 properties still require remediation. Since 1994, approximately
2,940 residential properties and HAAs have been remediated under the RA for OU2 (EPA,
2014a). In September 2014, EPA celebrated the OU2 Milestone Cleanup Event recognizing the
reduction of blood lead levels in Ottawa County children.
The ROD for OU4 was signed on February 20, 2008. The OU4 ROD addressed source materials
(i.e., chat, fine tailings, and smelter wastes), rural residential yard soil contamination, transition
zone soil contamination (i.e., the soil under and extending outward from a chat base or a tailings
pond), and contamination in water drawn from rural residential wells. The OU4 ROD stated that
the remedy would be implemented in two phases over a period of 30 years (EPA, 2008).
OU4 addresses the undeveloped rural and urban areas of the Site where mining and mill residues
and smelter wastes have been placed, deposited, stored, disposed of, or otherwise come to be
located as a result of mining, milling, smelting, or related operations. OU4 includes rural
residential years located in Ottawa County outside of city or town limits, except for yards that
were addressed under Ol J 2. The RD for OU4 Source Removal consisted of a four part design
package that included the Final Remedial Design Report, Residential Yards and Wells and
Smelter Site Remedy (CH2M HILL, 2009a), Final Remedial Design Report, Distal Areas
(CH2M HILL 2009b), Final Remedial Design Report, Chat in Stream (CH2M HILL, 2009c),
.mLEinal..Reme.diaLDesign,.Report, Central-Mill Fine Tailings-P-ond-and-Repository ¦(CH2M——
HILL, 2011b).
89
-------
Phase 1 of the remedy selected under the OU4 ROD addresses voluntary relocation of residents
in the area shown in Figure 4. Phase 1 also provides for chat sales. Phase 1 addresses source
materials in a manner that reduces the overall footprint of contamination and reduces the need
for land use restrictions, ICs, and O&M. Phase 2 of the OU4 remedy addresses certain source
areas that will remain after the Phase 1 cleanup activities are complete. These areas may include
chat bases, tailings ponds, unmarketable chat piles and bases, and the chat that remains from the
consolidation of distal area chat. Chat sales will continue.
Several Phase 1 RA construction activities have been completed under OLJ4. Under the OU4
ROD, the residents of the on-site towns of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville were relocated from
these areas which have high concentrations of source materials (i.e., the mill tailings known as
chat and fines). As explained in a 2010 ESD, EPA expanded the relocation effort to include the
residents of Treece, Kansas. EPA funded the Lead Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance
Trust (LICRAT), through ODEQ, and LICRAT purchased the Ottawa County properties at issue,
and carried out the relocation effort with minimal EPA oversight. A similar trust—the TRA
Trust—was established in Kansas to address the Treece relocation. The LICRAT buyout began
in 2009 and was completed in 2011. The Treece buyout was completed in 2012. A total of 628
residences, 74 businesses, and 125 renters were relocated from impacted areas (ODEQ, 2011).
The Central Mill Repository (CMR) was constructed from the Central Mill Fine Tailings Pond
(CMFTP). The CMR is being constructed in a phased build-out approach. The Phase 1
construction is complete, and the CMR is receiving source material. The CMR is capable of
receiving an estimated 7.6 million CY of source material and will be the repository for much of
the OU4 RA activities (CH2M HILL, 201 lb). Three rural residential yards were remediated
under the Phase 1 RA in 2010. Approximately 3,556 tons of soils containing lead concentrations
that exceed the remediation goal of 500 mg/kg were excavated from the rural residential yards
and transported to the CMR (CH2M HILL, 201 la). The smelter site remediation was completed
in November 2011. Approximately, 42,889 tons of source material was transported from the
smelter site to the CMR (CH2M HILL, 2012). The fine tailings pilot study (FTPS) was
completed in January 2012. The FTPS met the overall objectives set for the project. In particular,
the volume of tailings that was injected per well exceeded the projected volume. The FTPS
injected approximately 58,063 CY of fine tailings. However, the cost involved with executing
the injections exceeded those estimated in the OU4 ROD, and key assumptions outlined in the
OU4 ROD were not met (CH2M HILL, 2013). In addition, multiple chat piles and chat bases
from several distal groups have been excavated and transported to the CMR and have been
consolidated in subsidence features (CH2M HILL 2011a, CI I2M HILL 2012, CH2M HILL
2012b, CH2M HILL 2013b, CH2M HILL 2014, and CH2M HILL 2015).
Several Phase 1 RA construction activities under OU4 are ongoing. EPA/ODEQ continues to
excavate and transport chat bases and chat piles from distal areas. Marketable chat sales are
ongoing and chat piles and bases can be purchased at the following website
http://projects.ch2m.com/TCOU4chat/. To date, 309,787 tons of chat and developmental rock
have been sold to nearby chat processors (Table 8). All chat purchased must be used in
accordance with the Chat Rule as provided in the OU4 ROD. The OU4 ROD stipulated that
transition zone (TZ) soils be excavated along with source material. The volume of transition
zone soil found to be contaminated has greatly exceeded estimates in the RI/FS. In addition,
removal of contaminated transition zone soil has essentially removed certain remediated
90
-------
properties of topsoil. Consequently, EPA has begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive
excavation of contaminated soils, EPA is adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind
metals in soil, making them less bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to
continue excavation of contaminated TZ soil. It is hoped that more topsoil may be preserved by
adding phosphate-containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving topsoil, an objective of
the pilot study is to reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable levels while decreasing the
volume of TZ soils being excavated and disposed at the Central Mill Repository (EPA, 2014d).
If this pilot project is successful, and soil amendments successfully remediate transition zone
soil, this remediation approach may become the EPA's principal means of addressing
contaminated transition zone soil. The OU4 ROD already provides for the use of soil
amendments to help revegetate excavated areas. The OU4 ROD does not contemplate the use of
soil amendments as the principal remediation technique for the transition zone soils.
Consequently, if the pilot project is successful, EPA may take administrative actions, consistent
with the NCP, to make this soil amendment technique part of the remedy. The pilot project is
being conducted by the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma on its land known as the Catholic 40 and on
the distal area of the site known as Distal 6A (Figure 3).
Phase 2 RA construction activities under OU4 are yet to be implemented due to the ongoing
activities of Phase 1. Phase 2 activities will be implemented during the last 5 years of the
remedy, years 26 through 30, to make the remedy more cost efficient.
3.3 Operation and Maintenance and Long-Term Monitoring
The State of Oklahoma, through the OWRB and, since 1993, the ODEQ (the ODEQ was formed
in 1993 and took over Superfund responsibilities in the State of Oklahoma from the ODSH and
OWRB at that time), is responsible for conducting the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program (also referred to in site documents as the Long-Term Monitoring [LTM] Program or
After Action Monitoring [ AAM] Program) activities, well plugging activities, and O&M for
OU1. These activities are conducted through a Cooperative Agreement between the ODEQ and
EPA.
The ROD for Oil 1 does not specifically state what O&M activities were to occur at the site.
However, the ROD does mention O&M and costs related to the dikes and diversion work. The
ROD also stipulated that a two-year monitoring and surveillance program would be conducted
after construction of the selected remedies to assess the effectiveness of the RA at mitigating the
acid mine discharges to Tar Creek and at preventing the migration of the aeid mine water to the
Roubidoux aquifer (EPA, 1984). The results of the two-year monitoring and surveillance
program were summarized and presented in the first five-year review report. After completion of
the two-year monitoring program, it was determined that the Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program would continue for OU1 to further investigate potential impacts to the
Roubidoux aquifer from acid mine water. The First Five-Year Review Report stated that after
completion of this program, monitoring of the water quality in the Roubidoux aquifer would be
accomplished through the normal sampling conducted by the various water supply operators as
j^quii^d^>y4he-Sai^i.inking..Water-Act-(SDWA)^EPAr1994)v'The-RoubidouX''Groundw'ater-
Monitoring Program was conducted in two phases. Phase I activities were presented in the
91
-------
Second Five-Year Review Report (EPA, 2000b), The results of Phase II were presented in the
Third Five-Year Review (EPA, 2005).
After completion of the Phase II Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program, the ODEQ
implemented a follow-up groundwater monitoring program with the approval of the EPA. The
ODEQ determined that the monitoring conducted by local water supply operators was inadequate
for purposes of monitoring the water quality in the Roubidoux aquifer. The ODEQ' s reasons for
this conclusion were; the analytical parameters and frequency of sampling vary between
individual water suppliers; the sampling procedures are not consistent between water suppliers;
and the sampling is conducted without an approved Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). The
ODEQ therefore recommended the groundwater monitoring program to provide consistent
analytical testing procedures and sampling schedules and to ensure the quality and consistency of
the data (ODEQ, 2002a).
Beginning in November 2003, the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Sampling Program
involved the sampling of 14 wells located at or near the site. These wells included 3 monitoring
wells installed by the ODEQ, 10 municipal supply wells, and one private well. Each well was
sampled twice a year for 5 years. During implementation, several changes were made to the
sampling program. Well Miami #1 became inoperable before the October 2004 sampling event
and was replaced by Miami #3. Wells Miami #11 and RWD7 #2 were added as background
wells in November 2006, the former because of its location between the mine area and Miami,
and the latter because of its westerly location (ODEQ, 2009). This phase of sampling under the
Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program concluded in April 2008 (ODEQ, 2008a). In 2009,
the ODEQ entered a new cooperative agreement with EPA to continue the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program, which was named the Tar Creek After-Action Monitoring
Part 2 (TCAAM2). The former (Part 1) being completed under the previous cooperative
agreement, TCAAM2 consisted of five rounds of groundwater sampling beginning in March
2010 and ending in October 2013 (ODEQ, 2014).
It should be noted that neither the EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water
wells at the site that fail to meet the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under
the SDWA. However, data do indicate that secondary (aesthetically-based) maximum
contaminant levels (SMCLs) for the indicator parameters sulfate and iron (indicator parameters
are compounds that indicate possible mine water impacts) were exceeded in four wells
completed in the Roubidoux. In one of these wells indicator parameters were so high that it is
certain that the well is impacted by mine water from the Boone aquifer. In two other wells the
indicator parameters are so high that it is probable that the wells are impacted by mine water
from the Boone aquifer. (ODEQ, 2014). It should be noted that neither the EPA nor ODEQ have
identified any public drinking water wells at the site that fail to meet the Maximum Contaminant
Levels (MCLs) established under the SDWA.
The ROD for QUI recognized that additional abandoned Roubidoux wells might be identified in
the future. The ROD contained provisions calling for evaluation of the need to plug additional
wells that were discovered if warranted (EPA, 1984), The ODEQ identified 19 wells that
required further assessment (ODEQ, 2006b). The ODEQ completed plugging efforts of the Tulsa
Mine well and the powerhouse piezometer in February 2015. Both wells were plugged with Type
1 Portland cement. In addition, the ODEQ discovered two additional wells, one located in north
92
-------
Picher and the other located on the Distal 8 property (Catholic 40) (see Figure 3) that require
evaluation. Future wells that the ODEQ would like to plug include the Quapaw #5 and Quapaw
#2 wells (ODEQ, 2015). The EPA and ODEQ continue to evaluate the need to plug abandoned
Roubidoux wells when wells are identified and located.
The third and fourth five-year review reports both identified the lack of an O&M plan for the
dike and diversion channel at the Admiralty Mine as an issue. Based on recommendations,
ODEQ developed an updated O&M plan for the Admiralty Mine site. The O&M plan was
completed on November 2, 2012. Under the O&M plan, annual inspections are performed for the
diversion and dike remedy at the Admiralty Mine site and annual inspection elements include: an
Abnormal Occurrence Response Plan, Performance Standards, and annual cost estimates of
O&M (ODEQ, 2012). Annual inspection elements also include: (1) inspecting the sealed mine
shaft for settlement and for depressions which could collect runoff and permit percolation into
the sealed shaft, (2) checking slopes of diversion dike for deterioration and inspecting the crown
for settlement and for depressions that could hold water, and (3) inspecting the diversion channel
for blockage of flow by flood debris, vegetation, or beaver dams.
As part of the Admiralty Site O&M plan, an Abnormal Occurrence Response Plan was
developed. In the Abnormal Occurrence Response Plan, "abnormal occurrence" is defined as a
100-year flood event. Abnormal situations that may occur as the result of a 100-year flood
include: (1) failure to contain flow behind the dike, (2) breaking of the dike, (3) areas of
deteriorated vegetation, and (4) identification of new subsidence areas. Under the abnormal
occurrence response plan, if damage is minimal, the necessary minor repairs are executed. If
major damage has occurred, the plan initially calls for temporary repairs to contain the damage.
Once the damage is contained, the plan calls for an investigation to determine the cause of the
damage. Once cause is determined, a solution including permanent repairs is developed.
The Admiralty Site O&M plan also includes Performance Standards. These Performance
Standards are considered adequate under normal weather conditions and include the following
provisions: (1) flow from the watershed should be contained in the channel, (2) storm flows
should rarely top the dike, (3) water should not accumulate over the sealed shaft areas, (4)
depressions, ruts, holes, or breaches in the dike and the absence of vegetation on the dike that
may lead to erosion should be corrected (ODEQ, 2012). The dikes and stream channel diversion
work completed at the Admiralty Mine site was inspected as part of the site inspection for this
five-year review.
In a letter dated July 22 2014, EPA indicated that the OU1 RA was moving toward completion,
with completion of ODEQ well-plugging activities being the last RA activity for OU 1. Once RA
is complete, OU 1 will move entirely into O&M (EPA, 2014c).
The OU2 ROD selected remedy called for excavated contaminated soil to be disposed of at an
on-site repository. Consistent with the OU2 ROD, EPA constructed on-site repositories in areas
that were already contaminated. Then EPA disposed of the contaminated residential area soil in
lh£sejepiosito.i:ie.s... To. close, -the ' '
had soil lead concentrations less than 500 ppm, and vegetated the disposal areas. Also consistent
with the OU2 ROD, EPA worked with ODEQ to ensure that ICs were placed on the repositories.
93
-------
ICs included an environmental easement prohibiting certain practices on the repositories that
would damage the soil cover. The ICs provided ODEQ with future access to inspect the
repositories. ICs also included deed notices to alert purchasers of the repositories and of the
prohibitions. The repositories used during the course of the RA, now closed, are presently being
used as pasture land for grazing. The North Repository, used and operated by previous
contractors at the site, was closed by CI I2M HILL (CH2M HILL, 2007a), At the request of EPA,
CII2M HILL installed a fence and gates to prevent unauthorized access onto the County
Repository, which will be used by Ottawa County employees and local residents to deposit
impacted soil from county road maintenance and excavation for local utility work (CH2M HILL,
2007b). The South Repository was closed in 2006 through a process of final site grading,
leveling, removal of bulk debris, and vegetative cover establishment. After the work was
completed, the property owner expressed concern that the vegetative cover was not well
established. On June 4, 2010 an agreement was executed between the property owner and EPA
outlining the modifications necessary to restore the property to a condition that would be suitable
for cattle grazing or raising hay. The site modifications at the South Repository restored
approximately 23 acres. The restoration efforts were completed by May 2011 (EPA, 2013A), On
October 19, 2012 the ODEQ filed an executed deed notice that outlined the land use restrictions
for the property and identified suitable re-uses for the land (EPA, 2013A).
The EPA determined that no further action was warranted to address OU3, and O&M activities
are not required for OU3 (EPA, 2000a).
The RA is currently ongoing for OU4 and no OU4 O&M activities are currently occurring at the
Site. However, ICs in the form of Deed Notices have been filed on all the properties that
participated in the LICRAT buyout. Deed Notices were filed on all properties and a database of
the notices is located in Table 9a. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment has filed
Environmental Use Controls on all the properties that participated in the TRA buyout, which are
listed in Table 9b.
94
-------
Table 9a: Deed Notii es of LICRAT Buyout
I i( RAT
Parte! Number
Adflress
.1 i).!:i
Deed Book Number
JHCli I'lrf NllMl' IT
D-icu'iu-st Virhf
!>"i- Kiciriliii'- ll.il"
Assessor Parcel Number
j
1
PIGlOOi
704 S Francis
5/17G007
839
500
1-2007-002560
5/17/2007
6660-00-009-001 -0-000-00
2
P1G1O02
120 E 9th St
9/9/2008
873
222
1-2008-005292
9/10/2008
6700-00-001-004-0-000-00
3
PIG1004-1
737 S Oneida
12/29/2008
879
-541
1-2008-007370
12/30/2008
6720-00-018-013-0-000-00
4
PIG1003
125 Tar River
8/21/2009
893
787
1-2009-004344
8/24/2009
•6020-00-006-001-0-000-00
5
P1G1O0S
106 River
5/29/2007
840
192
1-2007-002746
5/29/2007
6020-00-007-005-0-000-0
6
P1G1007 j
1281 S 605 Rd
8/30/2007
847
257
1-2007-004765
8/30/2007
0000-14-029-023-0-008-00
7
P1G1008 j
208 River
7/20/2007
844
28
1-2007-003840
7/20/2807
6020-00-002-001 -0-000-00
8
P1G1012 j
502 N Nctla
8/28/2007
847
73
1-2007-004699
8/29/2007
6540-00-004-001-0-001-00
9
PIG1013 1
3:2 S College
5/24/2007
840
61
1-2007-002692
5/24/2007
6720-00-001-011-0-000-00
10
PIG10I4 j
710 N Picher
6/5/2007
840
781
1-2007-002908
6/5/2007
6540-00-001-004-0-000-00
11
PIG10I5 |
504 N Picher
6/14/2007
841
424
1-2007-003110
6/14/2007
6540-00-005-009-0-000-00
12
P1G1017
104 Main St
5/29/2007
840
187
1-2007-002743
5/29/2007
6010-00-013-001 -0-000-00
6010-00-013-005-0-000-00
13
P1G1019 |
514 S Francis
5/22/2007
839
644
1-2007-002630
5/22/2007
6660-00-001 -029-0-000-00
14
P1G1020
501N Main
5/17/2007
839
502
1-2007-002561
5/17/2007
6540-00-007-007-0-000-00
IS
PIG1021
404 W A St
4/29/2010
907
732
1-2010-002036
4/29/2010
6620-00-006-001-0-000-00
6620-00-007-008-0-000.00
16
P1G1022
206 E 12 St
10/4/2007
850
419
1-2007-005661
10/4/2007
6700-00-010-015-0-000-00
17
P1G1023
123 E 9th St
7/12/2007
843
568
1-2007-003737
7/16/2007
6700-00-006-001-0-000-00
18
P1GI025
701 N Picher
8/28/2007
847
167
1-2007-004735
8/29/2007
6540-00-002-004-0-000-00
19
P1GI027A
100 S Columbus
2/2/2007
903
348
1-2010-000570
2/3/2010
6210-00-002-001-0-000-00
20
PIG1029
250 S Picher
5/29/2007
840
190
1-2007-002745
5/29/2007
6180-00-013-004-0-000-00
21
PIG 1030
590 2 St
5/17/2007
839
506
1-2007-002563
5/17/2007
6010-00-002-016-0-000-00
22
P1G1031-L
733 S Oneida
12/29/2008
879
543
i-2008-007321
12/30/2008
6720-00-018-013-0-000-00
23
P1GI032
712 N Picher
6/5/2007
840
777
1-2007-002906
6/5/2007
6540-00-001-003-0-001-00
24
F1G1033
509 N Main
5/17/2007
839
508
1-2007-002564
5/17/2007
6540-00-007-004-0-000-00
25
P1G1035
2 S3 E 11th St
8/14/2008
871
524
1-2008-004785
8/14/2008
6700-00-007-012-0-000-00
26
P1G1036
221 N Main
5/17/2007
839
504
1-2007-002562
5/17/2007
6010-00-005-013-0-000-00
27
P1G1038
701 S Ottawa
9/252007
849
499
1-2007-005403
9/25/2007
6720-00-007-017-0-000-00
28
P1G1039
512 N Columbus
5/24/2007
840
63
1-2007-002693
5/24/2007
6540-00-007-009-0-000-00
29
PI G1040
104 N Columbus
5/17/2007
839
498
1-2007-002559
5/17/2007
6210-00-002-002-0-000-00
30
P1G1041
313 N Treece
9/25/2009
896
59
1-2009-004993
9/25/2009
6620-00-003-002-0-000-00
31
P1GI044
301 E nth St
6/5/2007
840
779
1-2007-002907
6/5/2007
6700-00-008-011-0-000-00
32
P1GI045
675 E 2 St
5/22/2007
839
642
1-2007-002629
5/22/2007
6010-00-007-006-0-001-00
33
P1G1046
515 N Picher
2/14/2008
859
303
1-2008-000929
2/15/2008
6540-00-006-003-0-000-00
34
P1G1048
900 S Gladys St
6/14/2007
841
428
1-2007-003112
6/14/2007
6700-00-006-004-0-000-00
35
P1G2046
621 E 2 St.
6/7/2007
841
105
1-2007-002961
6/7/2007
6010-00-007-006-0-000-00
36
P1G2047
600 S Cherokee
10/11/2007
851
126
1-2007-005831
10/11/2007
6720-00-008-001-0-001-00
95
-------
37
38
39
40
PIG2049
P1G2050
PIG2051
P!G2052
739 S Main
32? Treece
2I6NDSI
135 S Frisco
6/14/2007
12/6/2007
8/30/2007
6/7/2007
841
855
847
841
llSllllSPlillSI
426
156
252
103
1-2007-0031111
1-2007-007017
1-2007-004762
1-2007-002960
6/14/2007
12/7/2007
8/30/2007
6/7/2007
n IV
6540-00-007-003-0-000-00
6620-00-'003-001-0-000-00
6620-00-005-007-0-000-00
6540-00-005-008-0-000-00
41
P1G2053
30: S Cherokee
7/26/2007
844
315
1-2007-003945
7/27/2007
6555-00-000-018-0-000-00
6555-00-000-022-0-000-00
42
P1G2054
S00 S Coise!
4/2/2009
885
414
1-2009-001745
4/3/2009
6720-00-001-019-0-000-00
43
PIG20S6-L
200 M Treece
9/16/2008
873
677
1-2008-005450
9/17/2008
6620-00-005-005-0-000-00
44
P1G2058
200 S Frusco
9/25/2007
849
494
1-2007-005399
9/25/2007
6180-00-009-002-0-000-00
6180-00-009-003-0-000-00
618O-O0-OO9-O01-O-OOO-OO
45
P1G2060
124 N Vantage
6/14/2007
841
422
1-2007-003109
6/14/2007
6555-00-000-005-0-000-00
6555-00-000-008-0-000-00
6555-00-000-009-0-000-00
46
P1G2062-L
700 N Main
12/29/2008
879
539
1-2008-007319
12/30/2008
6540-00-002-006-0-001-00
47
P1G2063
501 W A St
6/14/2007
841
430
1-2007-003113
6/14/2007
6630-00-000-003-0-000-00
48
P1G206S
205 N Vantage
9/5/2007
847
745
1-2007-004946
9/10/2007
6620-00-005-002-0-000-0
49
P1G2068-I
200 E 9th St
10/16/2008
S75
533
1-2008-006048
10/16/2008
6700-00-002-009-0-000-00
50
PIG2070
530 E 7th St
9/7/2007
847
743
1-2007-004945
9/10/2007
6660-00-0! 1-017-0-000-00
SI
P1G2071-L
196 Wade St
10/2/2008
874
672
1-2008-005785
10/3/2008
6010-00-006-015-0-000-00
52
P1G2074-L
603 N Netta
8/29/2007
847
157
1-2007-004728
8/29/2007
6550-00-001-001-0-000-00
53
P1G2076
730 S Cherokee
8/9/2007
845 .
440
1-2007-004276
8/9/2007
6720-00-007-011-O-OO0-0O
54
P1G2077
207 E 10ft St
8/9/2007
845
442
1-2007-004277
8/9/2007
6700-00-007-007-0-000-00
55
P1G2079
314 K Treece
8/6/2007
845
233
1-2007-004207
8/8/2007
6620-00-002-008-0-000-00
54
P1G2080
988 E 1st St
9/6/2007
847
620
1-2007-004893
9/7/2007
6020-00-005-004-0-000-00
57
PIG2082
705 W Carl Patterson
12/27/2007
856
98
1-2007-007333
12/28/2007
6200-00-004-010-0-000-00
6200-00-004-007-0-000-00
58
P1G2083
200 S Picher
8/6/2007
845
231
1-2007-004206
8/8/2007
6180-00-013-001-04)00-00
59
P1G2085
203 N Vantage
8/29/2007
847
163
1-2007-004732
8/29/2007
6620-00-005-003-0-000-00
«0
P1G2086
1 SON Main
10/30/2009
898
30
1-2009-005604
10/30/2009
6010-00-007-001-0-000-00
6610-00-007-001-0-000-00
61
P1G2087
305 N Treece
8/6/2007
845
235
i-2X7-004208
8/8/2007
6620-00-003-003-0-000-00
62
PJG2088
204 S Netta
2/14/2008
859
301
1-2008-000928
2/15/2008
6180-00-012-001-0-000-00
«3
PIG2089
465 S Ethel
8/1/2007
844
684 1 1-2007-004061
8/1/2007
6520-00-019-013-0-000-00
<4
PSG2090-L
531 N Netta
11/7/2008
877
528
1-2008-006690
1 1/19/2008
6540-00-005-001-0-000-00
65
P1G2091-L
515 S Francis
10/28/2008
- 876
337
1-2008-006308
10/30/2008
6660-00-002-011-0-000-00
a
P1G2092
548 W A St
10/4/2007
850
415
1-2007-005659
10/4/2007
6620-00-007-001 -0-000-00
67
P1G2094
209 N Vantage
3/18/2008
861
271
1-2008-001520
3/19/2008
6620-00-005-001-0-000-00
68
P1G2095
631 X Netta .
10/30/2007
852
590
1-2007-006270
11/1/2007
6550-00-001-008-0-000-00
6550-00-001-007-0-000-00
6550-00-001-006-0-000-00
96
-------
I.H.RV1
tV'n'l Vniu r
Address
Hit.- Mji ¦
Kid li- ->k Nur l.--
f>„ Niinhir
Document Number
|i«*tl itio.r lit.™ !>¦>,•
Vml-ir
69
PIG2096 •
205 EI 0th St
828/2007
84?
79
1-2007-004702
8/29/2007
6700-00-007-006-0-000-00
70
P1G2099
302 E1 SthSt
8/30/2007
847
255
1-2007-004764
8/30/2007
6700-00-009-001-0-000-00
71
PIG2100 |
107 El 111) St
9/14/2007
848
457
1-2007-005125
9/17/2007
6700-00-0100-006-0-000-00
72
P1G2101 j
503 N Main
8/23/2007
846
574
1-2007-004593
8/24/2007
6540-00-007-006-0-000-00
73
P1G2I02 i
133 N Frisco
10/2/2008
874
670
1-2008-005784
10/3/2008
6555-00-000-002-0-000-00
74
FIG2103 |
806 S Gladys
8/29/2007
847
160
1-2007-004730
8/29/2007
6700-00-001-003-0-000-00
75
P1G2104-L j
307 S Cherokee
12/19/2008
879
266
1-2008-007210
12/19/2008
6720-00-001-025-0-000-00
7«
P1G2105 j
500 N Columbus
8/29/2008
847
155
1-2007-004727
8/29/2007
6540-00-007-008-0-000-00
77
PI 02 5 07
800 S Gladys
9/14/2007
848
455
1-2007-005124
9/17/2007
6700-00-001-002-0-000-00
6700-00-001-001-0-000-00
78
P1G2108 I
528 N Cornell
11/15,-2007
853
674
1-2007-006596
11/15/2007
6710-17-029-023-0-022-00
79
P1G2S11 j
20! El 1thSt
9/6/2007
847
622
1-2007-004894
9/7/2007
6700-00-010-008-0-000-00
80
P1G2113 j
601 N Netta
8/29/2007
847
157
1-2007-004728
S/29/2007
6550-00-001-001-0-000
81
P1G2516 i
202 El 1th St
¦ 8/28/2007
847
77
I-2007-004701
8/29/2007
6700-00-007-014-0-000-00
82
P1G2117 i
140 Frisco
8/21/2007
846
379
1-2007-004527
8/22/2007
6630-00-000-011-0-000-00
83
P1G2118
125 N Frisco
8/23/2007
846
570
1-2007-004591
8/24/2007
6555-00-000-011-0-000-00
84
P1G2119
151 N Main ST
9/14/2007
848
461
1-2007-005127
9/17/2007
6010-00-006-019-0-000-00
6010-00-006-008-0-000-00
85
PiG2i20
1122 S Ella St
9/12/2007
848
463
i-2007-005128
9/17/2007
6710-21-029-023-0-022-00
8$
P1G2122
216 E 12th St
8/28/2007
847
75
1-2007-004700
8/29/2007
6700-00-010-012-0-000-00
87
P1G2123
600 S College
6/16/2009
889
632
1-2009-003072
6/17/2009
6720-00-005-001-0-000-00
88
P1G2S24
623 E 2nd St
4/23/2010
907
746
1-2010-002043
4/29/2010
6010-00-007-004-0-000-00
8?
P1G2125
101 E 10th St
8/23/2007
846
572
1-2007-004592
8/24/2007
6700-00-007-001-0-000-00
99
PIG2I26-L
511 NPieber
10/23/2007
876
68
1-2008-006189
10/24/2007
6540-00-006-004-0-000-00
91
P1G2527-L
179 N Main St
10/9/2008
875
187
1-2008-005918
10/9/2008
6010-00-006-017-0-000-00
92
P1G2128 .
704 W 2nd St
i 1/13/2007
SS3
587
1-2007-006547
11/14/2007
6200-00-004-001-0-000-00
93
P1G2129-1
ISO River
11/6/2008
877
74
1-2008-006500
i1/7/2008
6020-00-007-004-0-000-00
>4
P1G2132
504 N Main
3/25/2010
905
753
1-2010-001395
3/26/2010
6540-00-006-004-0-002-00
6540-00-006-005-0-000-00
95
P1G2133L
801 N Netta
5/20/2010
909
42
1-2010-002449
5/21/2010
6580-00-006407-0-000-00
%
PIG2134
4101 S69Hwy
i 1/12/2008
877
252
1-2008-006579
11/13/2008
000-32-029-023-0-0003-00
97
P1G2135
1280 S 605 Rd
7/15/200?
869
663
1-2008-004126
7/15/2008
0000-14-029-023-0-004-00
98
P1G2137-L
509 N Columbus
10/28/2008
876
335
i-2008-006307
10/30/2008
6540-00-008-006-0-000-00
99
P1G213S
720 S Cherokee
6/26/2008
868
708
-1-2008-003810
6/27/2008
6720-00-007-006-0-000-00
100
P1G2139
500 W A Street
5/28/2009
888
621
1-2009-002737
5/28/2009
Personal Property tax-Leased tod
101
P1G2140A
711 N Netta
3/30/2010
906
150
1-2010-001489
3/31/2010
6550-00-002-004-0-000-00
102
P1G2140
711 N. Netta
i 1/29/2007
854
582
1-2007-006876
11/29/2007
6550-00-902-001-0-000-00
103
F1G2141
500 S Emily
1/8/2008
856
665
1-2008-000129
1/8/2008
6660-00-002-017-0-000-00
104
P1G2142
211 E 10th St
10/4/2007
850
417
1-2007-005660
10/4/2007
6700-00-007-010-0-000-00
105
P1G2145
18GS Vantage
9/18/2007
848
713
1-2007-005212
9/19/2007
6555-00-000-023-0-001-00
97
-------
¦
¦
BaSSSS
' 'f kvi
BBSS
wt
P1G2145 : ISOS Vantage
9/18/2007
848
713
1-2007-005212
9/19/2007
6555-00-000-020-0-000-00
6555-00-000423-0-000-00
107
P1G2146-L 160 Wade St
10/9/2008
875
189
1-2008-005919
10/9/2008
6010-00-006-011 -0-000-00
IBS
P1G2147-L 210 N Main Sf
10/9/2008
875
191
1-2008-005920
10/9/2008
6010-00-008-001-0-000-00
189
P1G214S HOIS. Pearl St
i 0/31/2007
852
584
1-2007-006268
10/31/2007
6700-00-010-010-0-000-00
110
P1G3001 517 S Emily
2/14/2008
859
297
1-2008-00926
2/15/2008
6660-00-003-013-0-000-00
HI
P1G3002 j 304 River
11/8/2007
853
321
1-2007-006449
11/9/2007
6020-00-002-001-0-000-00
112
P1G3003 '
507 S Cherokee
9/14/2007
848
459
1-2007-005126
9/17/2007
6720-00-003-018-0-000-00
113
P1G3008
260 K Wade St
11/13/2007
853
591
1-2007-006549
11/14/2007
6010-90-005-003-0-000-00
114
P1G3009
213 E 9th St
11/6/2008
853
178
1-2007-006397
11/7/2007
6790-00-005-003-0-000-00
115
P1G3012
2!6SAlte
5/13/2008
865
497
1-2008-002781
5/14/2008
6520-00-009-021-0-000-00
116
P1G3013
271 S Wade St
9/27/2007
849
731
1-2007-005484
9/28/2007
601040-002-011-0-000-00
II?
P1G30I9
505 S Francis
10/23/2007
852
t 1 ! 1-2007-006077
10/23/2007
6660-00-0020-007-0-000-00
118
P1G3021
215SNetta
10/9/2007
850
728
1-2007-005750
10/9/2007
6180-00-0013-014-0-000-00
119
P1G3022
lOSNOnedia
2/14/2008
859
299
1-2008-000927
2/15/2008
6200-00-001-008-0-000-00
6200-00-001-003-0-000-00
120
P1G3023
314NTreece
10/11/2007
851
129
1-2007-005833
10/11/2007
6700-00-009-011-0-000-00
121
PIG3025
P1G3025A
32 i S Emily
12/9/2009
901
207
1-2009-006539
12/23/2009
6520-00-012-010-0-000-00
6520-00-012-012-0-000-00
122
P1G3026
600 S Aita
12/6/2007
855
160
1-2007-007019
12/7/2007
6660-00-006-017-0-000-00
123
P1G3027
303 E 11 ft St
1/9/2008
856
713
1-2008-000160
1/9/2008
6700-00-008-009-0-00!-00
124
P1G3028
11/20/2007
854
199
1-2007-006732
11/20/2007
6700-00-009-009-0-000-00
I2S
P1G3029
305 N Main St
11/1 3/2007
853
597
1-2007-006552
U/S 4/2007
6010-00-004-015-0-000-00
126
P1G3030
100 N Ella Street
5/20/2009
889
353
1-2009-002962
6/12/2009
6520-00-002-019-0-000-00
127
P1G3031
397 N Main St
9/16/2008
873
681
1-2008-005452
9/17/2008
6010-00-004-009-0-000-00
12$
P1G3033
103 Wade St
5/27/2010
909
445
1-2010-002594
5/28/2010
6010-00-001 -007-0-000-00
129
P1G3035
314 S Alta
11/15/2007
853
672
1-2007-006595
11/15/2007 j 6520-00-012-020-0-000-00 |
130
PIG3036
445 S Emily
11/29/2007
854
580
1-2007-006875
11/29/2007
6520-00-020-005-0-000-00
131
PI <33037
1/28/2008
858
186
1-2008-00557
1/29/2008
6700-00-004-001-0-000-00
132
P1G3038
300 E 8th St
11/13/2008
877
313
1-2008-006595
11/13/2008
6710-21-029-023-0-001-00
133
P1G3041
700 S Ottawa
10/31/2007
852
582
1-2007-006267
10/31/2007
6720-00-018-001-0-000-00
134
P1G3045
701 S Cherokee
11/6/2007
853
175
1-2007-006395
11/7/2007
6720-00-006-017-0-000-00
135
P1G3047
212 S Atta
4/50/2008
863
216
1-2008-002019
4/11/2008
6520-00-009-017-0-000-00
13«
P1G3G49
20S S Vantage
11/8/2007
853
319
1-2007-006448
11/9/2007
6180-00-010-004-0-000-00
137
P1G3050
620 S Cherokee
1/6/2010
902
8
1-2010-000081
1/7/2010
6720-00-008-005-0-000-00
720-00-008-005-0-001-00
138
P1G3051
105 E 11th St
11/8/2007
853
312
1-2007-006444
11/9/2007
6700-00-010-004-0-000-00
m
P1G3053
ll/20/2007| 854
195
1-2007-006730
11/20/2007
6700-00-010-019-0-000-00
140
PIG3054
322 N Cornell
12/27/2007 | 856
100
1-2007-007334
12/28/2007
6660-00-005-014-0-000-00
141
¦ P1G3056-L
313 SEfflily
10/6/2008 J 876
343
>2008-006311
¦ 10/30/2008
6520-00-012-002-0-000-00
98
-------
I.ICRAT
i Parcel Number i
\ihi.t>c.I\ r. »u—
lir.,-' Ri-1-...-rini; lilt"
Assessor Parcel Number
142
P1G3059 i
322 S Alta
11/6/2007
853
173
1-2007-006394
11/7/2007
6520-00-012-023-0-000-00
143
P1G3060 |
12/6/2007
855
162
1-2007-007020
12/7/2007
6700-00-005-012-0-000-00
144
PJG3061A 1
505 North Cornell
11/10/2009
898
739
1-2009-005829
11/12/2009
6710-16-029-023-0-015-00
145
P1G3063
255 N Wade St
11/8/2007
853
317
1-2007-006447
11/9/2007
6010-00-002-015-0-000-00
6010-00-002-014-0-000-00
6010-00-002-012-0-000-00
146
P1G3064
1061 S 605 Rd
1/!7/2008
857
483
1-2008-000361
1/18/2008
0000-14-029-023-0-007-00
14?
P1G3065-L
720- 722 S College
11/25/2008
878
67
1-2008-006815
11/26/2008
6720-00-006-008-0-000-00
148
P1G3066
621 S Cherokee
12/6/2007
855
169
1 -2007-007024
12/7/2007
6720-00-005-028-0-000-00
149
P1G3069-L
302 N River
10/28/2008
876
339
!-2008-006309
10/30/2008
6020-00-001-003-0-000-00
150
PiG3070
314 E 8th St.
3/18/2008
861
273
1 -2008-001521
3/19/2008
6710-21 -029-023-0-014-00
151
P1G3071
312 E 8th St
3/18/2008
861
269
1-2008-001519
3/19/2008
6710-21-029-023-0-013-00
152
P1G3G73-L
lTONHalin
10/28/2008
876
341
1-2008-006310
10/30/2008
6010-00-001-001-0-000-00
153
P1G3075
300 S Alta
11/13/2007
853
593
1-2007-006550
11/14/2007
6520-00-012-013-0-000-00
154
P1G3077
136 2nd St
5/20/2008
866
83
1 -2008-002945
5/21/2008
6010-00-011-001-0-000-00
6010-00-011-002-0-000-00
155
PIG3078
247 River
2/17/2009
882
485
1-2009-000843
2/18/2009
6010-00-0n -o 12-0-000-00
156
P1G3081
601 S Oneida
4/10/2008
863
218
1-2008-002020
4/11/2008
6720-00-017-021-0-000-00
157
P1G3082
310 S Alta
11/13/2007
853
595
1-2007-006551
11/14/2007
6520-00-0)2-018-0-000-00
1SS
PJG30&5
30S E 8th St
3/18/2008
861
267
1-2008-001518 .
3/19/2008
6710-21-029-023-0-012-00
159
P1G3086
413 S Emily
1/28/2008
858
193
1-2008-000561
1/29/2008
6520-00-017-007-0-000-00
166
P1G30S7
454 S Alta
12/20/2007
855
739
1-2007-007237
12/21/2007
6520-00-020-023-0-000-00
161
P1G3088
SMS Oneida
6/17/2008
868
115
1-2008-003537
6/18/2008
6720-00-020-001-0-001-00
162
PIG3094
463 S Cornell
2/14/2008
859
289"
1-2008-000921
2/15/2008
6520-00-022-015-0-000-00
163
P1G3096
230 McGhee St
1/8/200$
856
662 ! 1-2008-000127
1/K2008
6010-00-011-007-0-000-00
164
P1G3098
466 S Francis
2/26/2008
860
61
1-2008-001131
2/26/2008
6520-00-022-031-0-000-00
165
P1G3G98A
466 S Francis
5/13/2010
908
551
3-2010-002316
5/14/2010
6520-00-022-022-0-000-00
6520-00-022-026-0-000-00
6520-00-022-028-0-000-00
166
P1G3099
504 S Alta
12/6/2007
855
165
1-2007-007022
12/7/2007
6660-00-003-017-0-000-00
167
P1G3101
216 E 9th
11/15/2007
853
670
1-2007-006594
11/15/2007
6700-00-002-007-0-000-00
168
P1G3102
3901st St
11/29/2007
854
585
1-2007-006878
11/29/2007
6010-00-007-001 -0-000-00
169
P1G3103
528 S Ottawa
12/20/2007
855
743
1-2007-007240
12/21/2007
6720-00-016-008-0-000-00
170
PIG3104
161 Wade St
1/3/2008
856
455
1-2008-000059
1/4/2008
6010-00-001-019-0-001-00
171
P1G3105
508 S Francis
12/4/2007
855
18
1-2007-006970
12/5/2007
6660-00-001-021-0-000-00
172
P1G3108
113 McGhee St
12/27/2007
856
92
1-2007-007330
12/282007
6010-00-008-011-0-000-00
173
P1G3110
214 E 9th St
12/27/2007
856
94
1-2007-007331
12/28/2007
6700-00-002-007-0-001-00
6520-00-002-016-0-000-00
174
P1G31I1
606 S Emily
12/6/2007
855
167
1-2007-007023
12/7/2007
6660-00-007-023-0-000-00
175
PI 03113
411 S Emily
12/18/2007
855
625
1-2007-007201
12/18/2007
6520-00-017-004-0-000-00
99
-------
m
P103 If5 I 607 S Emily
12/4200?
855
16
1-2007-006969
12/5/2007
6660-00-006-009-0-000-90
177
P1G3117
115 N Ethel
3/18/2008
275
I -2008-001522
3/19/2008
6520-00-000-002-0-000-00
6520-00-001-004-0-000-00
178
179
ISO
181
182
P1G3119
514 S Emily
[2/18/2007
855
627
1-2007-007202
12/18/2007
6660-00-002-031-0-000-00
P1G3I21
512 S Ella St
2/5/2008
858
665
1-2008-000742
2/6/2008
6660-00-004-025-0-000-00
P1G3124
305 N River
4/17/2008
863
749
1-2008-002203
4/18/2008
6010-00-0! 0-012-0-000-00
P1G3125
619 3rd St.
2/14/2008
859
291
1-2008-000922
2/15/2008
6010-00-008-007-0-006-00
P1G3126
416 S Emily
2/5/2008
859
163
¦-2008-000866
2/13/2008
6520-00-016-024-0-000-00
183
P1G3127
456 Ella St
2/26/2008
860
59
1-2008-001130
2/26/2008
6520-00-019-025-0-000-00
6520-00-019-027-0-000-00
184
185
186
187
lsi~
189
190
191
192
193
IjT
195
196
PIG3128
408 S Emily
1/28/2008
858
1-2008-000558
1/29/2008
6520-00-016-020-0-000-00
P1G3130
104 N Ella St
2/12/2008
165
1-2008-000867
2/13/2008
6520-00-002-014-0-000-00
P1G3134
522 N Picher
2/14/2008
293
1-2008-000923
2/15/2008
6540-00-005-012-0-000-00
P1G3137
2170 S 570 Rd
5/1/2008
864
679
1-2008-002520
5/2/2008
0000-02-029-023-0-001-02
P1G3138
4275SHwy69
9/5/2008
873
57
1-2008-005219
9/5/2008
0000-32-029-023-0-002-00
P1G3139
201 McGheeSt
5/29/2008
866
658
1-2008-003132
5/30/2008
6010-00-008-016-0-000-00
P1G3140
116 N Oneida
8/19/2008
871
691
1-2008-004866
8/19/2008
6200-00-001 -001 -0-001 -00
P1G3142
314 S Emily
4/15/2008
863
483
1-2008-002118
4/16/2008
6520-00-013-018-0-000-00
PSG3143
629 S Cherokee
5/16/2008
865
667
1-2008-002853
5/19/2008
6720-00-005-034-0-000-00
P1G3144A
620 South Ottawa
P1G3144-L
627 S Ottawa
5/13/2010
553
1-2010-002317
5/14/2010
1/20/2009
702
1-2009-000291
1/21/2009
6720-00-017-001-0-000-00
6720-00-008-033-0-000-00
P1G3146
418 S College
5/8/2008
865
305
1-2008-002713
5/8/2008
6720-00-002-010-0-000-00
P1G3147
313 N Ethel
5/1/2008
682
1-2008-002522
5/2/2008
6520-00-001-007-0-000-00
197
P1G3148
198 Karlio
5/13/2008
865
491
1-2008-0022778
5/14/2008
6010-00-001-014-0-000-00
6010-00-001-015-0-000-00
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
P1G3149
322 S Francis
10/16/2008
875
535
1-20G8-OO6O49
10/16/2008
6520-00-014-023-0-000-00
P1G3150
501 S Emily
8/20/2009
893
724
1-2009-004319
8/21/2009
6660-00-003-001-0-000-00
P1G3151
715 S Francis
4/15/2009
863
481
1-2008-002117
4/16/2008
6660-00-010-011 -0-000-00
P1G3153
463 S Emily
5/16/2008
865
669
1-2008-002854
5/19/2008
6520-00-020-013-0-000-00
P1G3155
608 S Alta
5/8/2008
865
307
1-2008-002714
5/8/2008
6660-00-006-026-0-000-00
PIG3156
531 S Ethel
5/20/2008
866
86
1-2008-002947
5/21/2008
6660-00-004-014-0-001-00
PIG3156 A
531 S Ethel
7/21/2009
t-2009-003761
7/21/2009
6660-00-004-014-0-001-00
P1G3158
7371/2 S Oneida
12/29/200!
880
546
1-2009-000277
1/15/2009
6720-00-019-008-0-000-00
266
P1G3159"
314NNette
6/26/2008
705
1-2008-003809
6/27/2008
6620-00-003-007-0-000-00
6620-00-003-008-0-000-00
207
208
209
210
P1G3161
466 S Emily
4/10/2008
214
1-2008-002018
4/11/2008
6520-00-021-031-0-000-00
P1G3162
801 S Pearl
7/14/2008
870
707
1-2008-004499
8/4/2008
6700-00-003-001 -0-000-00
P1G3164
507 W Carl Patterson
4/17/2008
863
747
1-2008-002202
4/18/2008
6180-00-010-017-0-000-00
P1G3164A
507 W Carl Patterson
5/19/2009
248
1-2009-002602
5/19/2009
6180-00-010-014-0-000-00
100
-------
101
-------
aHL
244
P1G3210
m S Alta
11/18/2008
877
534
1-2008-006693
11/19/2008
6520-00-017-031 -0-000-00
245
P1G32S1
306 McGhee St
6/26/2008
868
701
1-2008-003807
6/27/2008
6010-00-010-001-0-000-00
246
P1G3212
186 Wade St
7/21/2008
870
249
1-2008-004309
7/22/2008
6010-00-001-017-0-000-00
247
P1G3213
217 S Emily
7/10/2001
869
502
1-2008-004039
7/10/2008
6520-00-009-008-0-000-0
248
PIG3215
750 E1 st St
8/28/2008
873
194
1-2008-005276
9/8/2008
6010-00-013-018-0-000-00 -
249
P1G3216-L
620 S Oneida
11/15/2008
878
658
1-2008-007044
12/10/2008
6720-00-020-008-0-000-00
25®
PIG3217
208 N Netta
8/7/2008
871
105
1-2008-004622
8/8/2008
6620-00-004-004-0-000-00
251
P1G3218
700 S Cherokee
5/29/2008
866
652
1-2008-003129
5/30/2008
6720-00-007-001 -0-001 -00
2S2
P1G3220
111 N Ethel
7/10/2010
913
564
1-2010-003920
8/13/2010
6520-00-0G2-001-0-000-00
2S3
PSG3220A-2
102 E Central
2/25/2010
904
501
1-2010-001009
2/26/2010
6520-00-001-009-0-000-00
6520-00-001-010-0-000-00
6520-00-001-011-0-000-00
6520-00-001-016-0-000-00
254
P1G3222
4/10/2008
863
212
1-2008-002017
4/11/2008
6540-00-002-003-0-000-00
255
P1G3223
1290 S 607 Rd
8/25/2008
875
435
1-2008-006014
10/15/2008
0000-14-029-023-0-009-00
256
P1G3224
l290 S607Rd
5/13/2008
865
495
1-2008-002780
5/14/2008
1380-00-000-000-0-001-00
257
P1G322J
60551 E 13 Rd
4/15/2008
863
485
1-2008-002119
4/16/2008
0000-14-029-023-0-010-00
258
P1G3226
58601 E 30th Rd
2/10/2009
8E2
179
1-2009-000708
2/10/2009
0000-28-029-023-0-008-01
259
PI G3B02
222 W A St
1/15/2010
902
484 | 1-2010-000287
1/20/2010
6620-00-004-002-0-000-00
260
P1G3B03-L
3401 SHwy69
2/26/2009
883
268 1 1-2009-001045
2/26/2009
0000-29-029-023-0-004-01
261
P1G3B04
3401 S Hwy 69
3/6/2008
860
489 i 1-2008-001277
3/7/2008
0000-29-029-023-0-004-0
262
P1G3806
212 WPicher
2/26/2008
860
63 [ 1-2008-00132
2/26/2008
6180-00-013-009-0-000-00
2«
P1G3B07
1 SOS Vantage
2/2/2010
903
350
1-2010-000571
2/3/2010
6555-00-000-012-0-000-00
264
P1G3B09
631 S Francis
2/28/2008
864
329
1-2008-002367
4/25/2008
6660-00-010-001-0-000-00
265
P1G3B10
2 & Wade
11/20/2007
854
197
1-2007-006731
11/20/2007
6010-00-006-014-0-000-00
266
PJG3B11
77 1st St
i 1/8/2007
853
315
i-2007-006446
11/9/2007
6010-00-001-001-0-000-00
267
P1G3BJ2
214Treece
1/17/2008
857
481
1-2008-000360
1/18/2008
268
P1G3B13
607 Rd - Quapaw
12/4/2007
855
12
1-2007-006967
12/5/2007
138O-OO-OO3-O05-0-000-00
269
P1G3B14
526 N Cornell
3/25/2010
905
751
1-2010-001394
3/26/2010
6640-00-008-003-0-001-00
279
F1G3B15
318NNetia
12/4/2007
855
14
1-2007-006968
12/5/2007
6620-00-003-009-0-000-00
271
- P1G3B16
508 M Cornell
4/15/2008
863
478
1-2008-002116
4/16/2008
6540-00-008-008-0-000-00
272
PIG3B17
208 N Vantage
4/29/2010
908
555
1-2010-002318
5/14/2010
6620-00-006-003-0-000-00
273
P1G3B19
202 S Netta
7/31/2008
870
713
i-2008-004502
8/4/2008
6180-00-013-011-0-000-00
274
PIG4B01
215SFrwcis
11/12/2008
877
254
1-2008-006580
11/13/2008
6520-00-008-009-0-000-00
6520-00-008-001-0-000-00
275
PIG4B02
505 N Cornell
3/18/2009
884
532
1-2009-001482
3/18/2009
6710-21-029-023-0-002-00
276
P1G4B03
200 S Connell
12/10/2008
878
660
1-2008-007045
12/10/2008
6180-00-016-001-0-000-00;
277
P.1G4B04
315 E3 St .
4/9/2009
886
44
1-2009-001902
4/9/2009
6520-00-007-020-0-000-00
278
: P1G4B04A
315 E 3 St
5/27/2010
909
437
1-2010-002590
5/28/2010
6520-00-007-009-0-000-00
6520-00-007-011-0-000-00
102
-------
-------
LICK VI I
IMIYt.iNll.ilIn r
'k J Ircv
Dad Dat.-
1'ieii h''it. Niir.K:
Deed Paje Number
O-iunenf Ntnihr"
IVi-il Recording Date
Assessor Parcel Number
316
P2-25 |
286 Main St
1/20/2809
880
707
1-2009-000294
1/21/2009
6010-00-008-006-0-000-00
31?
. P2-29 1
200 West F St
1/29/2009
881
394
1-2009-000516
1/30/2009
6540-00-003-001 -00-000-00
318
. P2-3GL j
301 North Netta
5/27/2010
909
450
1-2010-002597
5/28/2010
6620-00-003-006-0-000-00
319
¦ P2-32A j
706 West State Line Rd
9/1/2009
894
678
1-2009-004596
9/2/2009
6680-00-003-002-0-000-00
320
P2-33
60751 East 10th Rd
2/27/2009
883
411
1-2009-001089
2/27/2009 | 0000-14-029-0236-0-012-00
321
P2-35
(P2N-1A?)
702 West State Line Rd
4/14/2009
886
613
1-2009-0021435
4/22/2009
6680-00-004-001 -0-00140
322
. P2-37 j
5625! East 10 Rd
3/30/2009
885
228 1 1-2009-001681
3/31/2009
0000-18-029-023-0-007-00
323
; p2-si j
524 North Picher
4/9/2009
886
46
1-2009-001903
4/9/2009
6540-00-005-012-0-001-00
324
P2-51(B) j
"LOT
165 Wade
12/29/2009
901
412
1-2009-006616
12/29/2009
6010-00-001-019-0-000-00
325
P2-51B
9/1/2009
894
677
1-2009-004595
9/2/2009
6010-00-001-018-0-000-00
326
. p2"55
521 North Picher
5/19/2009
888
246
1-2009-002601
5/19/2009
6540-00-006-001-0-000-00
6540-00-006-001-0-000-00
327
P2-59
204 Rive- St
5/27/2009
888
619
1-2009-002736
5/28/2009
602O-0O-O2a-0OG-0-OOO-OO
6020-00-003-001-0-00140
328
P2-61 1
34 2nd St
5/28/2009
888
623
1-2009-002739
5/28/2009
6020-00-004-003-0-000-00
329
P2-62
357 ICCarcKniaue
6/162009
889
634
1-2009-003073
6/17/2009
0000-30-029-023-0-026-01
33(1
P2-64A
285 Main St
6/25/2009
890
285
1-2009-003259
6/26/2009
6010-00-005-009-0-000-00
331
P2-65
104 North Wade
5/27/2009
888
613 j 1-2009-002730
5/28/2009
6010-00-006-001-0-000-00
332
P2-66L
202 River St
8/13/2009
893
449
1-2009-004198
8/14/2009
6020-00-003-002-0-000-00
533
P2-67
303 McGhee
6/11/2009
889
355
1-2009-002963
6/12/2009
6010-00-009.012-0-000-00
334
• P2-68
i 83 Tar River
mam
893
217
1-2009-004126
8/10/2009
6020-00-006-001-0-001-00
335
' P2-70
2501 South 550 Rd
7/1/2009
890
565
1-2009-003353
7/1/2009
0000-20-029-023-0-005-00
0000-23-029-022-0-001-00
336
: P2-71
631 3rd St
1000/2009
898
32
1-2009-005605
10/30/2009
6010-00-008-009-0-000-00
337
• P2-72
55800 East30Rd
8/24/2009
894
176
1-2009-004395
8/26/2009
0000-24-029-022-0-017-00
338
¦'P2-74
184 Tar River
6/11/2009
889
357
1-2009-002964
6/12/2009
6020-00-005-001-O-OOHO
339
P2-76
221 McGhee
9/10/2009
895
166
1-2009-004727
9/10/2009
6010-00-008-014-0-000-00
340
P2-77
402 2nd St
5/19/2009
888
250
1-2009-002603
5/19/2009
6010-00-002-001-0-000-00
341
¦ P2-7S
701 McGhee
7/7/2009
891
108
1-2009-003474
7/8/2009
6010-00-012-003-0-001 -00
342
: P2-79
190 Tar River
5/28/2009
888
622
1-2009-002738
5/28/2009
6020-00-006-002-0-000-00
6020-00-005-002-0-000-00
6020-00-007-001-0-001-00
343
P2-79A
P2-79AA
ES River bet 1 st & 2nd
4/13/2010
906
705
1-2010-001696
4/3/2010
6020-00-005-002-0-000-00
6020-00-007-001-0-001-00
344
P2-S1L
501 3rd St ¦
6/25/2009
890
291
1/2009-003262
6/26/2009
6010-00-005-007-0-000-00
345
P2-82L
274 Wade St
6/25/2009
890
287
1-2009-093260
6/26/2009
6010-00-005-007-0-000-00
346
:P2-83
302 Wade St
6/25/2009
890
289
1-2009-003261
6/26/2009
6010-00-004-001-0-000-00
347
P2-86
191 River St
7/14/2009
891
587
1-2009-003657
7/16/2009
6010-00-012-006-0-000-00
348
P2-87L
214 Main St
6/25/2009
890
293
1-2009-003263
6/26/2009
6010-00-008-005-0-000-00
349
.. "P2-88T. ..
231 McGhee
104
-------
I.IUUI
Pared Number:
:
AiMi i >¦.
IS-U
t)mi II- -k N intiiT
'J-.-v: Njr.tn-
I>- ¦ iir..-:ii Nun'-i-r
Hi-i-1 K-.e-.rli.v Dsic
Awwir Parcel Number
358
P2-9
202 South Vantage
1/22/2009
881
93
1-2009-000389
1/23/2009
6180-00-010-001-0-000-00
351
P2-92 i
WS Emily bet Cmr! & 6
12/22/2009
905
209
1-2009-006540
12/23/2009
6660-00-002-023-0-000-00
352
P2-93L
456 South Ate
7/21/2009
892
46
1-2009-003759
7/21/2009
6520-00-020-026-0-000-00
353
P2-95L
455 South Ethel
6/18/2009
892
44
1-2009-003758
7/21/2009
6520-00-019-009-0-000-00
354
P2-96
109 North Ethel
8/14/2009
893
489
1-2009-004210
8/14/2009
6520-00-002-003-0-000-00
355
>2-97
216 South Emily
11/5/2009
898
403
1-2009-005740
11/6/2009
6520-00-908-019-0-000-00
6520-00-008-021-0-000-00
356
P2-B1
301 South Cornell
11/5/2009
898
405
1-2009-005741
11/6/2009
6520-00-014-001-0-000-00
6520-00-014-013-0-000-00
35?
P2-B10
120 North Council
12/15/2009
900
685
1-2009-006412
12/16/2009
656O-OO-O0O-OOD-0-0OO-0O
358
P2-BUL
57785 East 40 Rd
3/30/2010
906
144
1-2010-001486
3/31/22010
0000-32-029-0230-002-02
359
P2-B16
128 North Cornell
360
P2-B1S
100 South Cornell
11/10/2009
899
63
1-2009-005892
11/16/2009
6210-00-001 -001 -0-000-00
361
P2-B1A
301 South Connell
2/25/2010
904
498
1-2010-001007
2/26/2010
6520-00-014-005-0-000-00
6520-00-014-020-0-000-00
362
P2-B2;
207 West 2nd St
5/13/2010
908
547
1-2010-002314
5/14/2010
6210-00-001-00641-0109-00
363
P2-B24
617£ast IsiSt
8/4/2009
893
445
1-2009-004195
8/14/2009
6010-00-013-011-0-000-00
364
P2-B25
3010 South 560 Rd
12/15/2009
901
410
1-2009-006615
12/29/2009
0000-25-029-022-0-003-00
365
P2-B26
471st St
8/4/2009
892
840
1-2009-004044
8/4/2009
6010-00-012-011 -0-000-00
366
P2-B2S
200 F Northeast
7/31/2009
892
591
1-2009-003960
8/3/2009
6600-00-007-006-0-000-00
367
P2-B28A
200 F Northeast
2/17/2010
904
173
1-2010-000847
2/18/2010
6600-00-007-006-0-000-00
368
P2-B3
P1G3010
419 s Cornell
2/2/2010
903
340
1-2010-000565
2/3/2010
6520-00-015-004-0-000-00
369
P2-B3A
125 North Cottnell
9/15/2009
895
408
1-2009-004818
9/15/2009
6710-21-029-023-0-006-00
379
P2-B5
2nd & Emily
1/19/2010
12/22/2009
902
902
486
14
I-2010-0002S8
1-2010-000084
1/20/2010
1/7/2010
6520-00-005-010-0-000-00
6520-00-005-021-0-000-00
371
P2-B52A
207 South Connell
12/29/2009
901
406
1-2009-006613
12/29/2009
6520-00-007-004-0-000-00
ill
P2-B52B
514 West A St
10/16/2009
897
383
1-2009-005415
10/16/2009
6620-00-007-004-0-001-00
373
P2-B6
319 South'Cornell
10/16/2009
897
379
1-2009-005413
10/16/2009
6520-00-014-008-0-000-00
374
-P2-B7
32! 1/2 East 12th St
1/19/2010
902
476
1-2010-000283
1/20/2010
0000-28-029-023-0-007-00
375
P2-B8
323 South Connell
2/17/2010
904
175 ! 1-2010-000848
2/18/2010
6520-00-014-010-0-000-00
376
P2-B88
55904 East 30 Rd
3/10/2010
905
85 j 1-2010-001170
3/10/2010
0000-24-029-022-0-017-01
377
P2-B8A
323 South Connell
4/29/2010
907
733 i 1-2010-002039
4/29/2010
6520-00-014-010-0-000-00
378
P2N-15
607 North Connell Ave
2/27/2009
883
412 j 1-2009-001090
2/27/2009
6710-16-029-023-0-013-00
379
P2N-6
1301 South 592 Rd
8/13/2009
893
447 j 1-2009-004196
8/14/2009
0000-15-029-023-0-005-00
380
P2K-S
61500 East 20 Rd
7/14/2009
891
458 1 1-2009-003618
7/15/2009
0000-13-029-023-0-013-01
0000-13-029-023-0-013-02
381
P3-I
436 South Francis
3/26/2010
906
20 ! 1-2010-001424
3/26/2010
6520-00-022-017-0-000-00
382
P31-I
515 South Ethel
10/16/2009
897
375 1 1-2009-005411
10/16/2009
6660-00-004-010-0-000-00
383
P3-2
150 South Frisco
5/27/2010
909
443
1-2010-002593
5/28/2010
6630-00-000-014-0-000-00
384
P32-37
273 Wade
385
P32-4L ¦
105 North Ethel
1/6/2010
902 '
12
1-2010-000083
.1/7/2010
6520-00-002-007-0-000-00
10S
-------
i
386 |
387 |
IsTj
389 j
390 )
391
392
m_
3 94
m_
396
397
m
399
408
m_
482
403
404
405
.496
P32-6
714 North Picher
9/1/2009
894
671
1-2009-004591
9/22009
6540-00-001-002-0-000-00
P32-6A
WSPicherbetG&HSt
3/31/2010
906
252
1-2010-001511
4/1/2010
6540-00-001-003-0-000-00
P32-7
720 North Pkher
mam
675
1-2009-004594
9/2/2009
6S40-00-001-001-0-000-00
P3-33L
934 North Cornell
1/20/2010
179
1-2009-000850
2/18/2010
65S0-00-00i -001-0-000-00
P34
167 Main
10/19/2009
897
446
I-2009-00544I
10/20/2009
6010-00-006-016-0-000-00
P3-4A
11/5/2009
1-2009-005743
11/6/2009
6540-00-002-008-0-000-00
P3-54UL
430 South Francis
10/23/2009
897
596
i-2009-005489
10/23/2009
6520-00-015-031-0-000-00
P3-56UL
228 Meghee
8/25/2009
894
177
1-2009-004396
8/26/2009
6010-00-011 -006-0-000-00
P3-57DL
153 West F
8/8/2009
896
681
[-2009-005223
10/9/2009
6540-00-002-006-0-001 -00
¦ P3-58
SS K St & W Ottawa
12/22/2009
901
211
1-2009-006541
12/23/2009
6680-00-002-003.0-001.00
P3-58AB
WS Emily bet 5 & Cntrl
2/25/2010
904
502
1-2010-001010
2/26/2010
6520-00-009-020-0-000-00
P3-6
501 North Netta
10/16/2009
897
377
1-2009-005412
10/16/2009
6540-00-005-006-0-000-00
P3-60AB
511 South Francis
4/27/2010
908
792
1-2010-002415
5/18/2010
6660-00-002-011-0-000-00
-P3-63U
20! Soaft Emily
2/3/2010
903
346
1-2010-000569
2/3/2010
6520-00-009-001-0-000-00
P3-63UA
169 Main
3/31/2010
906
250
1-2010-001510
4/1/2010
6010-00-006-018-0-000-00
P3-65AB
630 South Cherokee
4/22/2010
907
331
[-2010-0018SS
4/23/2010
6720-00-008-017-0-000-00
P3-66AB
442 S Emily
4/27/2010
907
744
1-2010402042
4/29/2010
6520-0-021-020-0-000-00
P3-67AB
440 South Emily
4/27/2010
907
742
1-2010-0002041
4/29/2010
6520-00-02J -017-0-000-00
P37-I
711 South Emily
11/13/2009
1-2009-005893
11/16/2009
6660-00-011-008-0-000-00
¦' P37-2
423 South Francis
1/4/2010
902
482
1-2010-000286
1/20/2010
6520-00-016-012-0-000-00
P37-3
206 South Alta
12/15/2009
900
1-2009-006414
12/16/2009
6520-00-007-003-0-000-00
6520-00-009-015-0-000-00
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
429
421
; P37-4
301 South Emily
3/12/2010
905
258
1-2010-001227
3/12/2010
6520-00-012-001-0-000-00
6520-00-012-004-0-000-00
' P37-5
462 South Emily
3/3/2010
905
256
1-2010-001226
3/12/2010
6520-00-021-029-0-000-00
¦ P37-6
316 Soulh Emily
12/17/2009
901
404
1-2009-006612
12/29/2009
6520-00-013-021 -0-000-00
¦; P37-?
701 South Oneida
12/8/20O9
3S3
1-2009-006303
12/9/2009
6720-00-018-017-0-000-00
6720-00-018-017-0-000-00
P37-8
620 North Cornell
12/18/2009
902
10
1-2010-000082
1/7/2010
6600-00-008-001-0-000-00
. P39-2
SS 2st bet McGhee & River 5/20/10
909
48
1-2010-002452
5/21/2010
6010-00-012-003-0-000-00
6010-00-002-003-0-000-00
..P39-3
592 Rd - Quapaw
11/10/2009
989
734
1-2009-005826
11/12/2009
1200-00-002-006-0-000-00
P39-5
21S South Picber
3/30/2010
148
1-2010-001488
3/31/2010
6180-00-0! 3-010-0-000-00
P39-7 ,
WS River bet 2 & 3 St
4/29/2010
908
561
1-2010-002321
5/14/2010
6010-00-011-009-0-000-00
P3-320
220 South Council
5/13/2010
908
549
1-2010-002315
5/14/2010
6180-00-016-009-0-000-00
P3-S34
321 East 12th St
1/19/2010
902
478
1-2010-000284
1/20/2010
0000-28-029-023-0-005-00
P3-B35
214 South Cornell
2/25/2010
904
500
1-2010-001008
2/26/2010
6180-00-016-007-0-001-00
P3-B36
NS ofist Bet Harlin &
5/28/2010
909
448
1-2010-002596
5/28/2010
6010-00-001-005-0-000-00
P3-B38
SS ofHafIin& Cardin
5/27/2010
909
441
1-2010-002592
5/28/2010
0000-30-029-023-0-026-00
P3-B39AB
213 South Cornell
2/17/2010
904
171
1-2010-000846
2/18/2010
6520-00-007-006-0-000-00
6520-00-007-007-0-000-00
-------
fill
i jj
t
HwLEagt.Nuniher ; I)ocumciit_Numbtr
422
P3-B4Q
203 South Cornell
3/26/2010
906
18
1-2010-001423
3/26/2010
6520-00-007-002-0-000-00
423
P3-B46AB
217 & 2171/2 S. Connell
5/20/2010
909
44
1-2010-002450
5/21/2010
6520-00-007-008-0-000-00
424
P3-B47
218 North Cornell
2/2/2010
903
344
1-2010-000568
2/3/2010
6180-00-016-008-0-000-00
425
P3-B49
219 North Cornell
2/17/2010
904
727
1-2010-001101
3/4/2010
6180-00-016-007-0-000-00
426
P3-B51
212 S Coimeli
4/22/2010
907
328
1-2010401886
4/23/2010
6180-00-016-005-0-000-09
11/19/2009
900
308
1-2009-006271
12/8/2009
427'
P3G000J
458 South Emily
11/9/2009
900
310
1-2010-006272
12/8/2009
6520-00-021 -027-0-000-00
11/9/2009
900
312
1-2010-006273
2/16/2010
428
P3GO803
624- North Picher
2/11/2010
904
30
1-2010-000776
2/16/2010
6540-00-003-002-0-000-00
429
P3GO005
212 South Alta
12/15/2009
900
693
1-2009-006416
12/16/2010
652-00-009-017-0-000-00
430
P3GO006
205 S Emily
10/30/2009
898
140
1-2009-005640
11/2/2009
6520-00-009-003-0-000-00
431
P3G0012
306 S Alta
2/11/2010
904
32
1-2010-000777
2/16/2010
6520-00-012-016-0-000-00
432
P3GO014
SMS Ella St
5/13/2010
908
557
3-2010-002319
5/14/2010
6660-O0-OG4-O28-0-OOO-OO
433
P3G0014A
514S EllaSt
5/13/2010
908
559
1-2010-002320
5/14/2010
6660-00-004-017-0-000-00
434
P3GO018
637 S Oneida
12/26/2009
904
177
3-2010-000849
2/18/2010
6720-00-017-035-0-000-00
6720-00-037-001-0-000-00
435
P3GOO20
417 South Francis
10/16/2009
897
381
1-2009-005414
30/16/2009
6520-00-016-008-0-000-00
436
P3G0021
11630 Road
3/30/2010
906
146
1-2010-001487
3/31/2010
1200-00-002-001-0-000-00
1200-00-002-009-0-000-00
437'
P3G0021 A
1751 S 592 Rd
3/30/2010
906
146
1-2010-001487
3/31/2010
1200-00-002-001-0-000-00
1200-00-002-009-0-000-00
438
PFB-i
437 South Ethel, Picher
6/24/2005
788
603
1-2005-003893
7/1/2005
6520-00-019-001-0-000-00
43?
PFB-15
600 East 2nd Street, Picher
5/4/2005
7/7/2005
784
789
' 308
301
1-2005-002655
1-2005-004074
5/6/2005
7/8/2005
6520-00-010-001-0-000-00
440
PFB-17
2200 South 610 Road, Quapaw -
7/13/2005
3/23/2009
789
884
567
712
1-2005-004186
1-2009-001570
7/14/200
3/23/2009
0000-24-029-023-0-007-00
441
PFB-20
602 North Picher, Picher
6/17/200S
787
517
1-2005-003589
6/17/2005
6540-00-003-005-0-000-00
442
PFB-22
609 South Emily, Picher
5/13/2005
785
7S8
45
198
1-2005-002839
1-2005-003771
5/13/2005
6660-00-006-012-0-000-00
443
PFB-25
127 North Frisco, Picher
8/1/2005
8/1/2005
786
791
580
518
1-2005-003313
1-2005-004795
8/9/2005
6555-00-000-003-0-000-00
444
PFB-26
509 South Emily, Picher
6/17/2005
787
515
1-2005-003588
6/17/2005
6660-00-003-009-0-000-00
44S
PFB-27
201 South Vintage, Picher
5/13/2005
6/24/2005
785
7S8
47
605
1-2005-002840
1-2005-003894
5/13/2005
07/01/2005
6180-00-011-011-0-000-00
446
PPB-28
601 West Carl Patterson Avenue, Picher
6/3/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005-
786 •
788
789
585
600
246
1-2005-003316
1-2005-003891
7/1/2005
6180-00-009-008-0-000-00
447
PFB-35
126 North Coimeli, Picher
5/27/2005
6/30/2005
786
788
266
595
1-2005-003179
1-2005-003887
7/1/2005
656O-O0-OOO-0OE-0-O0O-OO
448
PFB-45
503 North Main, Picher
8/23/2007
846
574
1-2007-004593
8/24/2007
6540-00-007-006-0-000-00
449
PFB-54
200 South Ella, Picher
6/3/2005
| 8/14/2005
786
793
588
2
1-2005-003318
1-2005-005168
6/6/2005
8/26/2005
652O-00-01CMH3-O-OOO-0O
6520-00-0 i 0-016-0-000-00
450
PFB-56
606 South Alta, Picher
| undated
787
63
1-2005-003439
6/10/2005
6660-00-006-021-0-000-00
451
PFB-6
700 West 2nd Street, Picher
| 7/12/2005
790
120
1-2005-004326
7/20/2005
6200-00-004-003-0-000-00
107
-------
5/19/2005
785
589
1-2005-003002
5/20/2005
452
¦ PFB-60
270 North Wade, Cardin
5/13/2005
7/7/2005
785
789
41
299
1-2005-002837
1-2005-004073
5/13/2005
07/08/2005
6010-00-005-006-0-000-00
453
"PFB-61
710 South Emily, Pitcher
imam
791
211
1-2005-004668
8/2/2005
6660-00-010-025-0-000-00
454
PFB-64
408 South Alta Street, Picher
6/3/2005
7/13/2005
786
789
582
595
1-2005-003314
1-2005-004197
6/6/2005
7/14/2005
6520-00-017-017-0-000-00
45S
PFB-66
200 South Alta, Pieher
5/13/2005
7/14/2005
785
790
43
118
1-2005-002838
1-2005-004325
5/13/2005
07/20/2005
6520-O0-OO9-013-0-000-00
456
TV-10
504 S College
8/22/200S
872
97
1-2008-004954
8/22/2008
6720-00-003-004-0-000-00
457
TV-100
401 South Emily
122/2009
881
95
1-2009-000390
1/23/2009
6520-00-017-003-0-000-00
6520-00-017-001-0-000-00
458
TV-10IL
420 South Emily
9/4/2009
895
170
1-2009-004729
9/10/2009
6520-00-016-027-0-000-00
459
TV-103L
412 South Emily
9/4/2009
895
172
1-2009-004730
9/10/2009
6520-00-016-022-0-000-00
460
TV-104
449 S Cornell
10/20/2008
874
666
1-2008-005782
10/3/2008
6520-00-022-003-0-000-00
4«i
TV-107L j 603 East 2nd St
7/30/2009
892
585
1-2009-003957
8/3/2009
6520-00-003-010-0-000-00
462
TV-109L
513 South Cornell
11/23/2009
899
750
1-2009-006124
11/30/2009
6660-00-001-008-0-000-00
463
TV-1!0
58700 E 30 Rd
12/29/2008
879
553
1-2008-007326
12/30/2008
0000-21-029-023-0-013-00
464
TV-111L
424 South Emily
12/(5/2009
900
687
1-2009-006413
12/16/2009
6520-00-016-030-0-000-00
6520-00-016-028-0-000-00
465
TV-112L
311 East 10th St
3/30/2010
906
142
1-2010-001485
3/31/2010
6700-00-008-050-0-000-00
466
TV-116
402 E 12ft St
9/4/2008
$73
12
1-2008-005193
9/5/2008
0000-21-029-023-0-010-00
467
TV-118
445 S Francis
9/16/2008
873
679
1-2008-005451
9/17/2008
6520-00-021-006-0-000-00
468
TV-11A
301 East 10th St
3/6/2009
883
724
1-2009-001224
3/9/2009
6700-00-008-001-0-000-00
469
TV-ilC
701 S Emily
8/7/2008
871
100
1-2008-004619
8/8/20009
6660-00-011-001-0-000-00
470
TV-I22
323 E 12ft St
10/23/2008
• 876
66
1-2008-006188
10/24/2008
0000-20-029-023-0-006-00
471
TV-123L
435 S Francis
12/12/2008
878
819
1-2008-007102
12/15/2008
6520-00-021-001-0-000-00
472
TV-12A
206 East 10th St
11/12/2008
877
256
1-2008-006581
11/13/2008
6700-00-005-011-0-000-00
473
TV-12B
212 Eas 10th St
8/13/2009
893
448
1-2009-004197
8/14/2009
6700-00-005-007-0-000-00
474
TV-12C
609 S Oneida
8/14/2008
871
520
1-2008-004783
8/14/2008
6720-00-017-027-0-000-00
475
TV-13
717 S Francis
7/21/2009
892
42
1-2009-003757
7/21/2009
6660-00-010-013-0-000-00
476
TV-14
457 S Emily
9/25/2008
874
668
1-2008-005783
10/3/2008
6520-00-020-011-0-000-00
477
TV-16
447 S Ethel
12/29/2008
879
555
1-2008-007327
12/30/2008
6520-00-019-003-0-000-00
6520-00-019-008-0-000-00
478
TV-16A
447 South Ethel
2/2/2010
903
352
1-2010-000572
2/3/2010
6520-00-019-017-0-000-00
479
TV-18L
542 South College
11/20/2009
899
443 -
1-2009-006011
11/20/2009
6720-00-004-009-0-000-00
48®
¦TV-li '
718 S College.
11/25/2008
878
69
1-2008-006812
11/26/2008
6720-00-006-008-0-000-00
481
¦ TV-2
316 East 10th St
8/14/2008
871
522
1-2008-004787
8/14/2008
6720-00-004-006-0-000-00
482
'TV-21
604 South Ella
3/5/2009
883
644
1-2009-001197
3/6/2009
6660-00-005-022-0-000-00
483
TV-23
501 S Francis
11/5/2008
876
771
1-2008-006453
11/6/2008
6660-00-002-001 -0400-00
484
¦TV-25
315 South Francis
1/15/2009
880
544
1-2009-000226
1/15/2009
6520-00-013-007-0-000-00
485
¦y ¦¦.iTV-26;...
603 S Ethel
11/5/2008
876
. 779
1-2008-006456 . ,
11/6/2008 . ..
6660-00-005-001-0-000-00
108
-------
486
LK-K-V!
I'Tii V.nUr
TV-30
i -
IW Pate
1/20/2009
IKVJ bi>il\ Vu-ihcr
880
1-2009-000293
"
6520-00-016-006-0-000-00
487
TV-31
501 S Cornell
7/31/2008
870
709
1-2008-004500
8/4/2008
6660-00-001 -001 -0-000-00
488
TV-32L
309 East 9th St
12/29/2008
879
551
1-2008-007325-
12/30/2008
6700-00-004-005-0-000-00
6700-00-004-001-0-000-00
489
TV-36
310 S Cherokee
8/28/2008
872
502
1-2008-005058
8/29/2008
6720-00-002-020-0-000-00
490
¦TV-37
459 S Francis
8/28/2008
872
498 | 1-2008-005056
8/29/2009
'6520-00-021 -012-0-000-00
491
TV-38
100 East 10th St
9/30/2008
874
530 j 1-2008-005739
10/1/2008
6700-00-006-007-0-000-00
492
TV-39
313 East 8th St
12/29/2008
879
549 j 1-2008-007324
12/30/2008
6700-00-002-005-0-000-00
6700-00-002-006-0-000-00
493
¦¦TV4
620 S College
mam
873
8
1-2008-005190
9/5/2008
6720-00-005-006-0-000-00
494
TV40
453 S Cornell
8/12/2008
87!
364
1-2008-004725
8/13/2008
6520-00-022-008-0-000-00
495
TV41L
509 South Francis
4/27/2010
907
740
1-2010-002040
4/29/2010
6660-00-002-011-0-000-00
496
TV46
448 South Emily
1/20/2009
880
709
1-2009-000295
1/21/2009
6520-00-021-022-0-000-00
497
TV47
443 S Emily
8/28/20QS
880
548
1-2009-000228
1/15/2009
6200-00-003-001-0-000-00
498
JV48
509 S Emily
11/18/2008
877
530
1-2008-006691
11/19/2008
6660-00-004-003-0-000-00
6660-00-004-006-0-000-00
499
TV49
455 S Emily
8/7/2008
871
107
1-2008-004623
8/8/2008
6520-00-020-008-0-000-00
56#
•TV-50
805 S Pearl
1/20/2009
880
711
1-2009-000296
1/21/2009
6700-00-003403-0-000-00
501
TV-52
110 East 10th St
l/i 5/2009
880
542
1-2009-000225
1/15/2009
6700-00-006-005-0-000-00
502
TV-53
308 E 5th St
8/7/2008
871
102
1-2008-004620
8/8/2008
6660-00-001-017-0-000-00
503
TV-54
709 S Emily
12/10/2008
880
699
1-2009-000289
1/21/2009
6660-00-011-004-0-000-00
6660-00-011-006-0-000-00
504
'TV-55
70S S Francis
12/2/2008
878
260
1-2008-006892
12/2/2008
6660-00-009-022-0-000-00
505
TV-56
700 S Emily
1/29/2009
881
396
1-2009-000517
1/30/2009
6660-00-010-017-0-000-00
50«
XV-57
638 S Oneida
8/19/2008
871
673
1-2008-004854
8/19/2008
6720-00-020-017-0-000-00
507
TV40
466 S Ella
9/25/2008
874
288
1-2008-005649
9/26/2008
6520-00-0194)31-0-000-00
sm
¦TV-61
551 S Oneida
7/31/2008
870
711
1-2008-004501
8/4/2008
6720-00-016-020-0-000-00
509
TV-62A
102 East 12th St
9/25/2009
896
57
1-2009-004992
9/25/2009
6700-00-010-021-0-000-00
5»
TV-62B
101 East 11th St
12/15/2009
900
683
1-2009-006411
12/16/2009
6700-00-010-001-0-000-00
511
TY-63
304 East 10th St
tmdated
873
59
1-2009-005220
9/5/2008
6700-00-004-007-0-000-00
512
TV-64
713 S Ottawa
12/15/2009
900
691
1-2009-006415
12/16/2009
6720-00-007-023-0-000-00
511
TV-65
505 S Emily
8/12/200S
871
368
1-2008-004727
8/13/2008
6660-00-003-005-0-000-00
514
TV-68
102 East UthSt
12/12/2008
878
817
1-2008-007101
12/15/2008
6700-00-007-018-0-000-00
6700-00-007-017-0-000-00
515
TV-69
309 East 10th St
11/5/2008
876
775
1-2008-006454
11/6/2008
6700-00-008-003-0-000-00
SM
•TV-7
307 East Uth St
undated
870
255
1-2008-004313
7/22/2008
6700-00-008-007-0-000-00
[ 517
TV-70
526 S Cherokee
8/28/2008
872
500
1-2008-005057
8/29/2008
6720-00-009-001-0-000-00
jsiF
TV-71
708 S Emily
11/25/2008
878
77 ! 1-2008-096816
11/26/2008
6660-00-010-021-0-000-00
psF
TV-72
604 S Emily
9/9/2008
873
224 j 1-2008-005293
9/10/2008
6660-00-007-017-0-000-00
520
XV-73
714 S Francis
11/25/2008
878
73 I 1-2008-006114 ;
11/26/2008
6660-00-009-030-0-000-00
fizi"
TV-79
10/2/2008
874
664 | 1-2008-005781 |
10/3/2008 | 6700-00-007-020-0-000-00 |
-------
522
TV-S
415 S Emiy
8/12/2008
871
366
1-2008-004726
8/13/2008
6520-00-017-009-0-000-00
523
524
525
526
527
528
52?
530
531
532
533
TV-S2
612 S Ella
12/3/2001
900
1-2009-006148
12/1/2009
6660-00-005-025-04)00-00
TV-84
712 S Francis
11/18/2008
877
532
1-2008-006692
i 1/19/2008
6660-00-009-026-0-000-00
TV-86
200 East 12ft St
mam
891
no
1-2009-003475
7/82009
6700-00-010-018-0-000-00
: TV-87
2071 S 570 Rd
9/25/2008
874
290
1-2008-005650
9/26/2008
0000-20-029-023-0-001-01
TV-87 A
2170 South 570 Rd
11/5/2009
40)
1-2009-005739
11/6/2009
0000-20-029-023-0-001-04
TV-88
613 S Ottawa
8/14/2008
871
526
I-200S-004786
8/14/2008
6720-00-008-027-0-000-00
TV-S9U
601 S Cherokee
12/8/2009
387
1-2009-006305
12/9/2009
6720-00-005-021-0-000-00
TV-90L
412 S Alta
11/25/2008
878
79
1-2008-006817
11/26/2008
6520-00-017-027-0-000-00
TV-94
514 S ESla
8/28/2008
872
504
1-2008-005059
8/29/2008
6660-00-005-029-0-000-00
TV-96
323 South Francis
3/13/2009
231
[-2009-001360
3/13/2009
6520-00-013-010-0-000-00
' TV-99
603 S Ottawa
undated
873
14
I-2008-005194
9/52008
6720-00-008-021-0-000-00
6720-00-009-020-0-000-00
Notes
"Addition" and "Legs! Des Option" fields have been omitted for posterity
-------
Table 9b: Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Environmental Remediation Identified Sites List Information
Treeee, K8, Relocation
305 Main St.. Treeci, KS
Project Code C301lj?2724
Et:f.'A i Date
Number Recorded
1 12-EUC-0012
2 12-EUC-0027
3 12-EUC-0O28
4 12-EUC-0029
5 ^ 12-EUC-0030
/] 9/2012
/1/2013
3/1/2013
3/1/20S3
/! 6/2014
1 .and Use Restrictions
No public area uses
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minima! livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Ho public area uses
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Mo public area uses
Other land use restriction: no Don-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities-
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock gazing,
pasturing and haying,
no residential uses
So public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities.
Preserve survey matters and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no resident! aluses
Other Sand use restriction: no non-residential use purposes.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
¦ no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Water Use Restrictions
restriction on water well construction
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
restriction on water well construction
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation excavations prohibited
unless for highway infrastructure or utilities and whet! proper soil
management is undertaken.
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE,
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as bng as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
Notification prior to tad use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
Notification to workers prior to excavation
Other activity requiring notification: prior written approval from
KDHE for installation of water wells.
Excavation for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities when
proper soil management i s undertaken.
Ill
-------
6 12-EUC-0G31
7 12-EUC-0032
3' I2-EUC-0033
9 12-EUC-0034
JO 12-EUC-0035
No public area ases
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
3/1/20! 3 Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE,
No public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
3/1/2013 Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
Other land use restriction: no excavation or scraping. No non-
residential uses. Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring
1/31/2013 stations Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures no agricultural uses except minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and baying, no residential uses
Other water-use restriction: prior written
approval ftom KDHE required restriction on
water well construction engineer to prevent
contamination of any underlying deep
aquifer ftom any contaminated shallow
aquifer.
Notification prior to land use changes Notification prior to property
transfer Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
No public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities. .\ Notification prior to land use changes
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations Restriction on water well construction Notification prior to property transfer
3/1/2013 Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical written approval from KDHE required prior Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
Structures to installation. excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing. soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
pasturing, and haying,
ho residential uses
No public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities. Notification prior to land use changes
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations Restriction on water well construction Notification prior to properly transfer
3/1/2013 Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical written approval from KDHE required prior Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
Structures to installation. excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing, soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
112
-------
11 12-EUC-O036
3/1/2013
12 12-HUC-0037
13 12-EUC-0038
S/I/20I3
0/3/2013
Nsles
The State of Kansas era
relocation occurred in nii
:*ed
Federal funding was ap]
anticipated in late Noveriil
occupancy. Project was
!p 'ovscl %
in October 2009 and the state trust and funding finalized in May 2010, 53,888,888 is available for the relocation program. Property appraisals began in October 2010 and initial offers are
ibato December 2010. All residents seeking the buyout were moved as of 2013. Remaining vacant lands were purchased and sold at auction in 2014 witli an Environmental Use Control restricting
lompleted in 2014.
No public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minimal livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Ho public area uses
Other land use restriction: no non-residential uses, scraping or
excavation except for adjacent highway infrastructure or utilities.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Construction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses except for minima} livestock grazing,
pasturing, and haying,
no residential uses
Other land use restriction: no soil disturbances unless granted
written approval by KDHE, no non-residential uses allowed.
Preserve survey markers and/or monitoring stations
Restrict the Constriction of Buildings or Other Physical
Structures
no agricultural uses limited livestock grazing, pasturing, and
haying allowed,
no residential uses
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Restriction on water well construction
written approval from KDHE required prior
to installation.
Other water use restriction: prior approval
from KDHE required.
Restriction on water weli construction
design must prevent contamination of any
underlying deep aquifer.'
Notification prior to tad use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
Notification prior to land use changes
Notification prior to property transfer
Notification to workers prior to excavation associated with
excavations for highway infrastructure or utilities as long as proper
soil management is undertaken with KDHE.
Notification to workers prior to excavation
a public state trust to oversee the voluntary relocation of residents in and around Treeee, KS that were affected by impacts torn historical mining operations and the loss of infrastructure when
ighboring Picher, OK. Residents outside of Treeee, bat served by the City of Treeee public water system are also included in the relocation efforts.
113
-------
3.4 Progress Since Initiation of Remedial Action
A two-year monitoring and surveillance program was conducted for the OU1 remedy during
1987 and 1988 by the OWRB, The data obtained from these activities were reviewed by the
EPA's Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERL). RSKERL submitted a
report in September 1989 (RSKERL, 1989). The OWRB documented the results and findings,
including a summary of the conclusions of the RSKERL review, in a report submitted to the
EPA in April 1991 (OWRB, 1991). The OWRB provided the following conclusions, which were
summarized in the first five-year review report;
• The volume of the acid mine water discharged to Tar Creek was not significantly
impacted by the OU1 RA;
• The concentrations of most constituents in the acid mine water discharges were
decreasing. The cause of the decreasing concentrations was not known, but the OWRB
stated the decreases were most likely the result of natural processes;
• The surface water quality was not significantly improved in Tar Creek, and the diking
and diversion work was at best only partially effective; and,
• Although some public water supply wells in the Roubidoux aquifer were affected by acid
mine water, insufficient data existed to evaluate the effectiveness of the well plugging
activities. Neither EPA nor ODEQ identified any public drinking water wells at the site
that failed to meet the MCLs established under the SDWA, and the drinking water at the
site was determined to be safe for all uses.
The EPA concurred with these findings (EPA, 1994).
The EPA provided further findings and conclusions based on the data in the first five-year
review report. These findings and conclusions included the following:
• The surface water data collected from Tar Creek were insufficient to perform statistical
analysis due to the short monitoring period following construction;
• Monitoring data from the acid mine water discharges indicated that the contaminant
concentrations were decreasing;
• The data indicated that the pollutant loading in Tar Creek was decreasing. The OWRB
calculated that only 15% of the total metals loading to Tar Creek was from identified
major discharges;
• The sediment data were erratic and conclusions on the effectiveness of the remediation
could not be drawn; and,
• The data from the monitoring of water levels in the Blue Goose mine showed that overall,
the long term average water level in the Boone aquifer had not been reduced. However,
the diking and diversion work had reduced short-term rises in water levels in the mines in
••TeSponseto'-preeipitation events (EPA, 1994). : ; ' '
114
-------
The EPA's overall conclusion in the first five-year review was that other sources of recharge
were contributing more to the acid mine water discharges to Tar Creek than previously
estimated. The EPA concluded that the diking and diversion structures were effective at reducing
surface water inflows into the mines in relation to specific precipitation events. However, the
diking and diversion structures were at best only partially effective at achieving decreases in acid
mine water discharges to Tar Creek (EPA, 1994).
The first five-year review report recommended that the; post remediation groundwater monitoring
program be extended to evaluate the success of the well plugging program at preventing
contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer (this program was already in progress). Also, 15
additional abandoned wells were identified after completion of the second well plugging
program. The EPA recommended evaluating the need to plug these wells based on the results of
the post remediation groundwater monitoring program. Due to changes in the designated uses for
Tar Creek, as stated in the OWQS, the EPA recommended no further RA or monitoring of Tar
Creek. The other recommendations of the First Five-Year Review, related to GUI, are discussed
in Section 2.4 (EPA, 1994).
The Phase 1 Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program began in 1991 to determine the
quality of the water in the Roubidoux aquifer and to assess the effectiveness of the well plugging
activities. The goal of the program was to determine if acid mine water had contaminated the
public water supply obtained from the Roubidoux aquifer. The program included wellhead
sampling of municipal supply wells and discrete sampling of the Roubidoux aquifer. The
wellhead sampling program was performed by the USGS for the OWRB between August 1992
and January 1993. Ten wells inside the mining area and one well outside the mining area (used to
determine background concentrations) were sampled monthly during this period (EPA, 1994).
The OU1 ROD did not set criteria to act as a "trigger" for action or decision regarding the
effectiveness of the well plugging program. To provide such a trigger, in January 1993, an
additional 10 wells outside the mining area were also sampled. By using wells outside the mining
area, more statistically reliable data on background conditions could be gathered and indicator
parameters that could be used to indicate the presence of acid mine water influx could be
determined. Indicator parameters are compounds that indicate possible mine water impacts -
sulfate, iron and zinc. Once background concentrations of contaminants were determined, if
background concentrations of key contaminants were exceeded in water drawn from the
Roubidoux aquifer, then that was an indication of the need for action or decision. Specifically,
zinc, iron, and sulfate were chosen as indicator constituents of acid mine water influx due to
large concentration differences for these constituents when comparing acid mine water to the
background Roubidoux aquifer concentrations (EPA, 1994). In addition to calculating
background concentrations for the indicator parameters, the ODEQ established tolerance limits
(statistically derived values representative of the upper limit of background concentrations) for
each parameter (ODEQ, 1993). The background concentrations and tolerance limits for these
indicator parameters are provided in Table 2.
The results of the wellhead sampling for wells completed in the Roubidoux were documented in
a-report submitted in July 1991. The data showed4hat all-21 wells sampled were meeting the —
MCLs. The five wells failed SGML testing for iron, and one of those wells also failed the SGML
for sulfate. Three of the five wells were located in Picher, one well was located in Commerce,
us
-------
and one weli was located in Quapaw. The EPA determined that these five wells were impacted
by acid mine water from the Boone aquifer. At least one well (of the five) was clearly impacted
by mine water from the Boone, and two (of the five) were probably impacted by mine water
from the Boone. It could not be determined, however, whether the impact was related to
widespread infiltration of acid mine water into the Roubidoux from the Boone aquifer or due to
well integrity problems (ODEQ, 1993 and EPA, 1994), In one of these wells indicator
parameters were so high that it is certain that the well is impacted by mine water from the Boone
aquifer. In two other wells the indicator parameters are so high that it is probable that the wells
are impacted by mine water from the Boone aquifer (ODEQ, 2014). It should be noted that
neither the EPA nor ODEQ have identified any public drinking water wells at the site that fail to
meet the MCLs established under the SDWA. However, data do indicate that SMCLs (SMCLs
are aesthetically based) for the indicator parameters (sulfate, iron, and zinc) were exceeded in
five wells completed in the Roubidoux.
Discrete sampling of the Roubidoux aquifer was conducted by the ODEQ from 1996 until 2002.
The ODEQ obtained samples from the five impacted drinking water supply wells in Picher,
Commerce, and Quapaw that were not meeting the aesthetic SMCLs (These wells meet MCLs
and water drawn from these wells is safe to drink). After completion of Phase II, the ODEQ
implemented continued monitoring in November 2003 as described in Section 3.4, this phase of
sampling under the Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring Program concluded in April 2008
(ODEQ, 2008a),
In 2009, the ODEQ entered a new cooperative agreement with EPA to continue the Roubidoux
Groundwater Monitoring Program, which was named the Tar Creek After-Action Monitoring
Part 2 (TCAAM2). The former, Part 1, (consisting of Phase I and Phase II) being completed
under the previous cooperative agreement. Five sampling events were collected from the
Roubidoux Monitoring Program wells from March 2010 to October 2013 as Part 2 of the
TCAAM2. Reports were generated for each of the five sampling events and include tables of
analytical results, maps of the well locations (Figure 2), graphs of iron and sulfate
concentrations, piper diagrams for the water samples, a list of the wells with completion data,
and water level measurements.
Reports from the five sampling events have similar results, conclusions, and recommendations,
with some variation. Below is a summary of the conclusions from the fifth and final event:
• Piper diagrams indicate Commerce #5, Miami #3, Miami #11, Quapaw #4, RWD4 #3,
and RWD7 #2 show no impacts from mine water.
• Quapaw #5 is considered contaminated by mine water since all three indicator parameters
are greater than tolerance limits.
• Picher #6 is probably impacted by mine water with exceedances of two indicator
parameters above tolerance limits.
• Picher #7 is probably impacted by mine water with exceedances of two indicator
— parameters above tolerance limits:
• Picher #5 and Cardin#l show signs of possible impacts from mine water with one of
116
-------
three parameters exceeding the tolerance limit.
• The Roubidoux water levels within the mining area have mostly increased, as seen in the
slight increasing trend over more than 15 years at Picher #5 (ODEQ, 2014).
Recommendations, from the TCAAM2 Reports include:
. •. . Quapaw #5 be tested for casing leaks that .may allow, mine, water to flow into the. well and
impact the Roubidoux.
• Abandon and plug Quapaw #2.
• Continued monitoring of the Roubidoux is suggested by the increasing trends shown at
the Picher wells. Also, as long as the mine pool represents a potential source of
contamination to the Roubidoux, continued monitoring is recommended.
• Continue to assess wells that still need to be plugged including those on BIA restricted
laud (ODEQ, 2014).
As documented in the previous five-year review, a fish consumption study was completed in
2007 by the ODEQ. The ODEQ collected and analyzed fish from the Neosho and Spring Rivers,
Grand Lake, and local ponds in Ottawa County receiving mine waste runoff. It concluded that
the consumption of some preparations of fish caught in waters affected by contaminated runoff
from abandoned lead and zinc mines in the Oklahoma portion of the TSMD have levels of lead
that could potentially cause adverse health effects. Separate advisory levels were determined for
both residents living within and those living outside of the Tar Creek area using different
background exposure assumptions (ODEQ, 2007). Results were compiled into a revised fish
consumption advisory, released August 5, 2008. The advisory breaks out fish consumption
suggestions on an easy-to-read chart for residents and non-residents of Tar Creek based on type
of fish and based on the location from which the fish was caught (ODEQ, 2008b). This study is
an indication that consumption of fish does pose a potential risk to human health, which
contradicts the finding of the OU1 ROD.
Finally, the Mayer Ranch passive treatment system (MRPTS) has improved surface water quality
in Tar Creek downstream of the treatment system by addressing approximately 20% of the
contaminant mass loading from the mine water discharges (Nairn, 2012). In addition, sensitive
fish species have begun to recolonize the formerly impacted portions of the stream directly
downstream from the MRPTS (Nairn, pers. comm.). Given the success, feasibility, and cost
effectiveness of treating acid mine water discharge with passive treatment, the process may be an
engineered remedy for contaminated surface water at the site. For these reasons, the fund
balancing ARARs waiver contained in the OU1 ROD may no longer be appropriate, and should
be reevaluated.
There have been 2,940 residential properties and HAAs remediated as part of the removal
response actions and OU2 RA (EPA, 2014a). The RA activities for OU2 are nearly complete. It
isxstimated4hat-^3proximatel-y-f'9-'pi-operties-stil-k:©qttir-©-samplmg-and-r-emievaTif~neeessa'ry;-I-n—
September 2014, EPA celebrated the Milestone Cleanup Event for OU2 recognizing the
reduction of blood lead levels in Ottawa County children. Remedial activities that occurred under
117
-------
0U2 include the remediation of residential yards, residential driveways, public alleyways,
churches, City Parks, schools, and other HA As. ODEQ will, under a cooperative agreement with
EPA, perform future OU2 RA (EPA, 2014b and ODEQ, 2014b). ODEQ's role will include
assessing new properties as they arise, sampling current properties set for remediation, and
carrying out remediation for properties as appropriate, under EPA oversight.
Since the Record of Decision in 1997, eleanup activities carried out as part of OU2 have been a
major contributor to creating a healthier, environment, and have, been instrumental in protecting
human health in Ottawa County. With funding from EPA, initially through ASTDR, and more
recently through ODEQ, the Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) has provided ongoing
community health education to families and the public on childhood lead poisoning prevention
and blood lead screening of children from 6 months to 6 years of age residing in affected areas.
Specifically, OCHD has provided childhood lead poisoning prevention education through
community and tribal health fairs, Head Start and child care programs, community organizations
and events, and the major county health department programs serving children. Monitoring and
follow up of children with elevated blood lead levels in Ottawa County is carried out by the
OCHD in conjunction with the Oklahoma Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
(OCLPPP) of the Oklahoma State Department of Health, Children with elevated blood lead
levels receive follow-up screening, education, and, as indicated, home environmental
investigations to determine the source of lead exposure in accordance with the guidelines of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Since the implementation of the programs
and the OU2 RA, significant reductions have occurred in blood lead levels of children in Ottawa
County (OSDH, 2015 and Table 10).
In 2004, the U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) published a
report on blood-lead levels in children at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. The ATSDR concluded
that the available evidence indicated that mine tailings in residential soils was the primary
exposure pathway and source of lead in children's blood at the Site (ATSDR 2004a). The report
stated that the percentage of children between the ages of 1 and 5 at the site with elevated blood
lead levels had decreased between 1995 and 2003. The report stated that 2.8 percent of the
children tested had elevated blood lead levels (above 10 (ig/dL), which was only slightly higher
than the percentage of children in the United States as a whole (2.2 percent).
Until 2012, the CDC's blood lead level of concern in children six years old and younger was 10
micrograms per deciliter (10|ig/dL), but that has changed and now the CDC is saying that there
is no safe blood lead level for young children.7 EPA has used a blood lead level of 5(ig/dL as a
benchmark in its recent analyses. In Ottawa County, the percentage of children with blood lead
levels that exceed 5|ig/dL has decreased from 11.6 percent to 3.7 percent from 2007 to 2014. The
3.7 percent calculated for 2014 is slightly higher than the average for Oklahoma (2.4 percent)
7 See Centers for Disease Control, Preventing Lead Poisoning in Young Children (1991) at p. 7 ("Blood lead levels
at least as low as 10 jig/dL are associated with adverse effects")- Later the CDC revised its position saying that there
was no safe level for lead in young children. See CDC Response to Advisoty Committee on Childhood Lead
Poisoning Prevention Recommendations in "Low Level Lead Exposure Harms Children: A Renewed Call of
Primary Prevention " (November 26. 201.3) ("CDC will emphasize that ihe best way to end .childhood lead
poisoning is to prevent, control or eliminate lead exposures. Since no safe blood lead level in children has been
identified, a blood lead "level of concern" cannot be used to define individuals in need of intervention.".)
118
-------
(OSDH, 2015), However, the blood lead data collected from children has demonstrated that the
OU2 RA has been effective.
The reductions in blood lead level in both Tar Creek Superfund Site and Ottawa County can be
directly related to RA under OU2 and education and monitoring efforts by OCHD.
The R1 for OU4 was completed in December 2005, and the FS for OU4 was completed in July
2007'(AATA,"2005 and CH2M HILL, 2007c). In lieu of conducting a Baseline Ecological Risk
Assessment (BERA) for OU4, the Ecological Remediation Goals developed by EPA for the
Cherokee County Superfund Site (located across the state line in Kansas) were considered
because of numerous similarities between the two sites including location, ecological sub region
and province (Osage Plains section of the Central Lowland Province), and similar concentrations
of lead, cadmium, and zinc. Other similarities between the sites including climate, topography,
flora and fauna, made the determination to use the Cherokee County site BERA appropriate for
OU4 (EPA, 2008). The ROD for OU4 was signed on February 20, 2008.
OU4 addresses the generally undeveloped rural and urban areas of the site where mine and mill
residues and smelter wastes have been placed, deposited, stored, disposed, or otherwise come to
be located as a result of mining, milling, smelting, or related operations. OU4 RA activities also
include the remediation of some rural residential yards that were not included in OU2. OU4 also
includes remediation of a former lead smelter, excavation and disposal of chat piles and chat
bases in distal areas, the construction of the Central Mill Repository from a former fine tailings
pond, and a fine injection pilot study. Additionally, subsidence areas are being used as chat
repositories, and chat sales/reuse continues at the site. The LICRAT buyout was completed in
2011, and Treece, Kansas was included as part of the buyout, which was documented in an
Explanation of Significant Difference (ESD) of the OU4 ROD. A separate Kansas trust—the
TRA Trust—handled the Treece buyout. A soil amendment pilot project is currently underway.
The purpose of the pilot project is to find out whether the addition of soil amendments works to
address contamination in transition zone soils. If successful, this approach to transition zone soils
should reduce the amount of soil that has to be excavated and disposed in the Central Mill
Repository. To date, as part of OU4, 56 chat piles and chat bases totaling approximately 1.6
million tons of chat, transition zone soils, and fine tailings have been remediated and 309,787
tons of chat sold. OU4 RA is ongoing.
As part of OU4, a pilot study involving the injection of fine tailings washed from chat at a
commercial chat washing plant was performed as part of the remedy. The fine tailings pilot study
(FTPS) started on September 2011 and was completed in January 2012. The work included site
reconnaissance, surveying, installation of three mine pool borings for use as water extraction
wells and tailings injection wells, installation of a Boone aquifer monitoring well, pilot study
mobilization, tailings excavation and processing, slurry mixing, tailings injection, and
demobilization. The FTPS met the overall objectives set for the project, including exceeding the
volume estimated to be injected per well. The FTPS injected approximately 58,063 CY of fine
tailings into one boring. However, the cost involved with executing the injections exceeded the
costs ©sUmaled in the OU4 RODy and it also exceed the cost of hauling the material to a
repository. In addition, the key assumption that all tailings would be injected as one major
119
-------
project, thereby realizing significant economies of scale, as outlined in the OU4 ROD, was not
met (CH2M HILL, 2013).
The Central Mill Repository (OMR) is located within the footprint of Central Mill Tailings Pond
(CMTP), and is currently used for disposal of source materials generated during remedial
activities performed for OU4. The CMTP was a surface impoundment used during previous
milling processes at the former Central Mill. The pond evaporated, leaving behind fine tailings.
The remedy for the CMTP was to convert it into the CMR, which will ultimately be covered with
soil that meets the remediation goals consistent with the OU4 ROD. Construction and operation
of the CMR began in January 2010. The CMR is being constructed in a phased build-out
approach and while construction is not complete, the CMR is receiving source material The
CMR is capable of receiving an estimated 7,6 million CY of source material and will be the
repository for much of the OU4 RA activities. In 2009, a groundwater monitoring program began
at the future site of the CM R to determine the impacts of the CMR to the perched groundwater
chemistry. The sampling program was concluded in 2011. Despite exceedances of MCLs for
lead and arsenic, exceedances of SMCLs for sulfate, total dissolved solids (I DS), iron, and
manganese, and an exceedance of OWQS for zinc, a 2012 report concluded that metal
concentrations in the groundwater had not increased since the construction and operation of the
repository began in 2010 (CH2M HILL, 2012c and Table 3).
Three rural residential yards were remediated under the OU4 Phase 1 RA in 2010.
Approximately 3,556 tons of soils containing lead concentrations that exceed the remediation
goal of 500 mg/kg were excavated from these three yards and transported to the CMR (CH2M
HILL, 201 la).
The smelter site remediation was completed in November 2011. Approximately, 10,881 tons of
source material, 11,402 tons of TZ soils, and 20,606 tons of debris were excavated or removed
from the smelter site and transported from the smelter site to the CMR for disposal (CH2M
HILL, 2012a).
Marketable chat sales are ongoing and chat piles and bases can be purchased at the following
website http://projects.ch2m.com/TCOU4chat/. To date, 309,787 tons of chat and developmental
rock have been sold to nearby chat processors (Table 8). All chat purchased must be used in
accordance with the Chat Rule, as provided in the OU4 ROD.
Multiple chat piles and chat bases from several distal groups have been excavated and
transported to the CMR. Below is a list of all Distal Groups that have had RA construction
activities implemented (see Figure 3 for the locations of the distal areas).
* Distal 1 North construction activities began in October 2009 and were completed in
October 2011. Six chat bases, three chat piles, and six mine shafts make up Distal 1
North. Approximately, 74,014 tons of source material, 19000 tons of debris, and 95,022
tons of TZ soils were disposed at the CMR or consolidated into mine shafts (CH2M
HILL, 2012a). ^
• Distal 1 South construction activities were began in October 2009 and were completed in
December 2010. One chat base, three chat piles, five mine shafts, and eight cased borings
120
-------
make up Distal 1 South. Approximately, 16,307 tons of source material, 25 tons of
debris, and 13,412 tons of TZ soils were excavated from the property and disposed at the
CMR or consolidated into mine shafts. Approximately 3,042 tons of source materials
were disposed at CB223 (CH2M HILL, 201 la).
• Distal 2 RA construction activities began in December 2009 and were completed in June
2011. Five chat bases, numerous ehat piles, 25 mine shafts, and 20 cased borings make
. .. up Distal 2. Approximately.292,9.33 tons of source.material, .205,239 tons of TZ soils,
and 16,383 tons of debris were excavated from the property and disposed at the CMR or
consolidated into mine shafts. Approximately 4,435 tons of TZ soils were disposed at the
Hockerville subsidence, and approximately 20,583 tons of source material were disposed
at CB223 (CH2M HILL, 2012a).
• Distal 3 RA construction activities began in October 2009 and were completed in August
2011. Four chat bases, two chat piles, 14 mine shafts, and 12 cased borings make up
Distal 3, Approximately 259,787 tons of source material, 305 tons of debris, and 5,375
tons of TZ soils were excavated from the property and disposed at the CMR.
Approximately 21,283 tons of source materials were disposed at CB223. However, not
all chat bases were entirely removed. It was determined that after remediation, the area
around CB220 would become a low lying area recharged by mine pool discharge. In
addition, remediation was limited at CB214, CB217, and CB215 due to sediment and
erosion purposes associated with Beaver Creek (CH2M HILL, 2012a).
• Distal 4 RA construction activities began in August 2011. However, site restoration and
final inspection have yet to be completed. One chat base, seven chat piles, one fine
tailings pond, 16 mine shafts, and 10 cased borings make up Distal 4. Approximately,
110,836 tons of source material, 921 tons of debris, and 1,260 tons of TZ soils) were
taken to the CMR or consolidated in mine shafts. In addition, CP091 was covered and
capped in place.
• Distal 5 RA construction activities began in September 2011 and were complete in
September 2015. Two chat bases, two chat piles, six mine shafts, and 13 cased borings
make up Distal 5. Approximately 89,101 tons of source material, 17,273 tons of debris,
and 17,490 tons of TZ soils were excavated and disposed at the CMR or consolidated in
on-site mine shafts.
• Distal 6 RA construction activities began in February 2012 and were complete in
September 2015. Two chat bases, two chat piles, 17 mine shafts, and 14 cased borings
make up Distal 6. Approximately 51,289 tons of source material, 1,718 tons of debris,
and 17,504 tons of' TZ soils were excavated and disposed at the CMR or consolidated into
on-site mine shafts. Subsidence feature CB01 IN-PIT took on 14,983 tons of material and
was covered in place with soils from Distal 5.
• Distal 7 North RA construction activities began in July 2013 and were completed in
September 2014. Five chat bases, four chat piles, 30 mine shafts, and 25 cased borings
make up Distal 7 North. Approximately 114,189 tons of source material, 15,455 tons of
debr4-S'rafld-49;-749-t0ns-<5^'TZ-S0M-s-were-e-x©avated-afld-4kp0sed--at;thfrCM'R-er
consolidated into on-site mine shafts. An estimated 55 acres were remediated on Distal 7
North (CH2M HILL, 2015).. . . * _ .
121
-------
• Distal 7 South RA construction activities began in July 2013 and were completed in
September 2014. Two chat bases, one chat piles, four mine shafts, two cased borings, and
one subsidence feature make up Distal 7 South, Approximately 55,815 tons of source
materials, 3,308 tons of debris, and 713 tons of TZ soils were excavated and disposed at
the CMR or consolidated into on-site mine shafts and subsidence features. An estimated
14 acres were remediated on Distal 7 South (CH2M HILL, 2015).
• Distal 8 RA construction activities began in December 2013 and are currently ongoing.
Distal 8 is also known as the "Catholic 40" and consists of one chat base, four cased
borings, and 2 mine shafts. Approximately, 107,000 tons of source material was
excavated and disposed at the CMR or consolidated into on-site mine shafts (pers. comm,
Craig Kreman). EPA has begun a pilot project whereby, in lieu of extensive excavation of
contaminated soils, EPA is adding soil amendments high in phosphates to bind metals in
soil, making them less bioavailable. This pilot project will inform EPA as to whether to
continue excavation of contaminated TZ soil. It is hoped that more topsoil may be
preserved by adding phosphate-containing soil amendments. In addition to preserving
topsoil, an objective of the pilot study is to reduce metals bioavailability to acceptable
levels while decreasing the volume of TZ soils being excavated and disposed at the
Central Mill Repository (EPA, 2014d).
• Distal 6A RA construction activities began in December 2014 and are currently ongoing.
Two chat bases, one chat pile, and two cased borings make up Distal 6A. To date, 82,284
tons of source material have been excavated and disposed at the 605 Hole. Soil
amendments are being used to remediate TZ soils as part of a pilot project as explained
above (ODEQ, 2015b and ODEQ, 2015c).
In addition to the CMR, some chat bases and chat piles have been consolidated in subsidence
features. Below is a list of all subsidence features that have received material generated through
RA construction activities since the last five-year review period;
• CB143/CB146/CB147 Group RA construction activities began in June 2011 and were
complete in September 2015. CB 143/CB 146/CB 147 consisted of three chat bases, nine
mine shafts, 10 cased borings and four subsidence features (Subsidence 1, subsidence 2,
CB150, and CB143). An estimated 60,936 tons of source material and TZ soils were
consolidated into mine shafts or subsidence features. Subsidence features 1 and 2 were
completely filled by September 2011, however, CB150 was not completely backfilled.
CB143 accepted an estimate 40,977 tons of material and was capped with on-site borrow
material. Approximately 11,741 tons of source materials, 4,894 tons of debris, and 5,308
tons of TZ soils were excavated and disposed at the CMR
• The Hockerville subsidence feature began accepting RA construction related waste in in
2011 and was filled by 2012. This subsidence feature was filled with an estimated 60,351
tons construction and demolition debris (CH2M HILL, 2012b),
• CB223 Group RA construction activities began in November 2009 and were completed
in November 2011. CB223 Group consisted of a chat-basfc-antLsuhsidence-featm^-A.tt.he.—
completion of the construction activities, approximately 112,280 tons of on-site material
(chat and TZ soils) and 44,908 tons of off-site material (from Distal I, 2 and 3) had been
122
-------
placed into the subsidence feature. Cover installation and final inspection was completed
in 2011 (CH2M HILL, 2012).
605 Hole subsidence feature is being used to consolidate source material from Distal 6A.
Future Distal projects will use the 605 Hole until it is completely backfilled.
-------
Table 10: Childhood Blood Levels
Childhood Blood Levels for Ottawa County, Oklahoma and Oklahoma 2007 - 20I31"4
Year
Ottawa County
Total Tested
Tar Creek
Total Tested
Ottawa County
% >5 jig/dL
Tar Creek
% > 5 ns/dL
State of Oklahoma
% > 5 nfi/dL ¦
2007
438
107
10.7%
12.1%
9.1%
2008
330
82
10.9%
13.4%
6.5%
2009
500
107
18.4%
19.6%
6.5%
2010
825
191
10.2%
13.6%
4.5%
2011
700
149
9.9%
9.4%
4.4%
2012
755
165
5.7%
7.9%
3.4%
12013
692
141
2.0%
2.8%
. 2.5%
f
Notes: j
1 Blood jead results were obtained from convenience sampling of children ages six months to six years of age residing in Oklahoma reported to the Oklahoma Childhood
Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Oklahoma State Department of Health. Blood lead test results were rounded to whole numbers for data analysis in accordance with
guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
2 As of Jjily 2012, capillary blood lead test results >5 |ig/dL were confirmed with a venous blood lead test in accordance with CDC and state case management guidelines.
From January to June, 2012. capillary blood lead test results from 5-9 pg/dL were not confirmed by a venous blood lead test. Therefore, the total number of children
between the range 5 — 9 jig/dL for CY 2012 could potentially include false positive results which would overstate the number of blood lead levels in this range.
3 "Numbeir of Blood Lead Levels: These tests represent the highest venous blood lead test for an individual child. In absence of a venous blood lead test, the highest capillary
blood l'jad test for an individual child is reported during the calendar year. Blood lead test results in the ranges 5-9 |ig/dL and >10 jig/dL include children with capillary
blood lead tests without a venous confirmation blood lead test. One child, who resided in multiple zip codes in Ottawa County during the year with multiple elevated blood
lead levels, was counted as elevated in more than one zip code area but was not duplicated in the annua! data for children screened in Ottawa County.
4 Tar Creek Zip Codes include Commerce (74339), Cardin (74355), North Miami (74358), Picher (74360), and Quapaw (74363)
124
-------
3.5 Activities Conducted at the Site by Other Governmental Agencies Since the Fourth
Five-Year Review
Various other Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies are also performing work at the Tar
Creek Superfund Site to address various environmental, health, and safety risks associated with
the site. The following paragraphs describe the activities these various agencies are conducting,
outside of the EPA's Superfund work, at the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
The University of Oklahoma (OU) continues to operate a passive treatment system (completed in
2008) to treat acid mine discharges at the Mayer Ranch in Commerce. The Mayer Ranch passive
treatment system has improved surface water quality in Tar Creek downstream of the treatment
system by addressing approximately 20% of the contaminant mass loading from the mine water
discharges (Nairn, 2012). Given the success, feasibility, and cost effectiveness of treating acid
mine water discharge with passive treatment, OU and ODEQ have partnered to construct an
additional passive treatment system in Commerce. The new passive treatment system is located
in southeast Commerce. The area originally contained two distinct mining related ponds. In
2006, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission filled the two ponds with chat and related debris
without installing any sort of water control. Shortly after closure of the features, mine drainage
started appearing in several areas as seepage surfaces. The proposed Southeast Commerce
passive treatment system (SCPTS) project is planned to address the contaminated mine drainage
that discharges from upwelling caused by the filling of the subsidence features (Nairn et al.
2014). Construction of the SCPTS is planned for the summer of 2015.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) completed the TSMD Transition Zone Assessment
Study in March 2013, intended to provide the information needed to determine the extent of soil
degradation from historic mining operations in the TSMD (FWS, 2013). The USFWS also
participated with Kansas State University (KSU) on its study into the health effects of mining
waste on migrating Canada Geese (Branta Canadensis). The USFWS and KSU study
documented elevated lead concentrations in liver and brain tissues and elevated pancreatic zinc
concentrations in Canada Geese. The authors conclude that Canada Geese at mine waste-
contaminated sites at the TSMD consistently suffer adverse health effects associated with lead
and zinc exposure (van der Merwe et al. 2011). The USFWS also participated with the f ar Creek
Trustee Council on completing the Restoration and Compensation Determination Plan (RCDP)
for Grand Lake (TCTC, 2014).
The Quapaw Tribe Environmental Office (QTEO) has been collecting water quality data since
2002 on streams and rivers within the TSMD. The Quapaw Tribe Water Monitoring Program
continues to monitor surface water bodies including Tar Creek, Spring River, and Beaver Creek.
This program is a designed to assess the ambient water quality conditions of surface waters
within the Quapaw lands and sampling is conducted monthly. The QTEO also collects
continuous water quality data at the Beaver Creek Gauging Station in the Tribal Pow-Wow
Grounds. Additionally, the tribe has initiated a Bio-assessment Monitoring Program that focuses
primari 1 y on Beaver Creek and Garret Creek(QTBO. 2013). The QTEO also operate under a
management assistance cooperative agreement and a remedial response cooperative agreement
both with EPA. Through the remedial response agreement, the QTEO contracted the Quapaw
125
-------
Services Authority (QSA) to lead the first tribal lead cleanup of a Super fund site in the nation at
Distal 8. also known as the "Catholic 40" {see Figure 3). In addition, the Quapaw Tribe of
Oklahoma (QTO) has also entered into an Interagency Agency agreement with the State of
Oklahoma, to undertake the cleanup of Distal 6A (Figure 3). Both cleanup projects are currently
ongoing (OK and QTO, 2014).
The Six Treaty Tribes of Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma,
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, and
the Wyandotte Nation of Oklahoma) have published two reports focusing on heavy metal
contamination in the TSMD. The Assessment of Heavy Metals in the Clay Fraction of Sediments
Downstream of the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Northeast Oklahoma focuses on the extent to
which contamination of fluvial sediment has occurred within the lands of the Six Treaty Tribes
of Oklahoma and the level of contamination within the floodplain sediments of the Grand Lake
watershed (TEMS, 2012), The Analysis of Heavy Metals in Culturally Significant Plants within
the Grand Lake Watershed of Northeastern Oklahoma focuses on the lead, zinc, and cadmium
concentrations in culturally significant plants and identifies an exposure pathway from
contaminated soils to the culturally significant plants (TEMS, 2014). Both studies were
conducted because Tribal members who gather wild plants from floodplain habitats in the TSMD
are concerned with potential health hazards posed by exposure to heavy metals from mining
waste.
Since the Record of Decision in 1997, the Ottawa County Health Department (OCHD) has
worked closely with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to provide
community-wide education on prevention of childhood lead poisoning, and to provide blood lead
monitoring of children in residential areas throughout Ottawa County. With funding from EPA,
the OCHD provides childhood lead poisoning prevention education through community and
tribal health fairs, Head Start and child care programs, community organizations and events, and
the major county health department programs serving children. Enhanced efforts are made by
staff to identify and offer blood lead screening to children served in the major programs offered
in the county health department.
Monitoring and follow-up of children with elevated blood lead levels in Ottawa County is carried
out by the OCHD in conjunction with the Oklahoma Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program (OCLPPP) of the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Children with elevated blood
lead levels receive follow-up screening, education, and, as indicated, home environmental
investigations to determine the source of lead exposure in accordance with the guidelines of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (OSDII, 2015).
126
-------
Appendix B: List of Documents Reviewed
AATA International, Inc., 2005. Draft: Remedial Investigation Report Tar Creek OU4 RI/FS
Program. December.
U. S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 2004a. Activities in
Oklahoma. Factsheet. June.
Brown and Root Environmental, 1997. Residential Remedid Investigation Report, Residential
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. Final, January.
U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (B1A), 2005. Chat Sales Treatability Study Work Plan for the Sale
of Indian-Owned Chat Within the Tar Creek Superfimd Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
Final. June 23.
City of Commerce (Commerce), 2011. Footprint Remedial Action Report, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 2, Ottawa County, OK. February.
City of Commerce (Commerce), 2012. Remedial Action Report, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unity 2, Ottawa County, OK. December.
CH2M HILL. 2007a. Remedial Action Report, Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 2,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. March.
CH2M HILL. 2007b. Technical Memorandum, County Repository Construction Completion, Tar
Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, April 9.
CH2M HILL. 2007c. Draft-Final Feasibility, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma, July.
CH2M HILL. 2007d. Technical Memorandum. Roubidoux Aquifer Data Evaluation. February
15.
CH2M HILL. 2008. Hydrogeologic Characterization Work Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 4. May.
CH2M HILL, 2009a. Final Remedial Design Report, Residential Yards and Wells and Smelter
Site Remedy, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. August.
CII2M HILL, 2009b. Final Remedial Design Report, Distal Areas, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. September.
CH2M HILL, 2009c. Final Remedial Design Report, Chat in Stream, Tar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK December.
CH2M HILL, 2010. Final Hydrogeologic Characterization Study Report, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. December.
CH2M HILL. 201 la. Technical Memorandum: 2010 Cleanup Status Report, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February.
CH2M HILL. 201 lb. Final Remedied Design Report, Central Mill Fine Tailings Pond and
Repository,'YdF^ ViWlTVitaM
CH2M HILL, 2012a. Technical Memorandum: 2011 Cleanup Status Report, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4 Remedial Action, Ottawa County, OK. January.
127
-------
CH2M HILL 2012b. Technical Memorandum Hockerville Subsidence Consolidation and
Capping Approach, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK.
February.
CH2M HILL. 2012c. Technical Memorandum, Central Mill Repository Groundwater Monitoring
Program 2011, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, Oklahoma.
March.
CH2M HILL, 2013. FTOll. Fine. Tailings Injection Pilot Study ReportTar Creek Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 4 Remedial Design, Ottawa County, OK. April.
CI I2M HILL, 2013b. Technical Memorandum: 2012 Cleanup Status Report, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK, January.
CH2M HILL, 2014. Technical Memorandum: 2013 Cleanup Status Report, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. February.
CH2M HILL, 2015. Technical Memorandum: 2014 Cleanup Status Report, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. February.
Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E), 2000. Removal Action Report for Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. December.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1986. Final Report, Engineering Supervision of Clearing and
Plugging Operations at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. December.
IT Corporation (IT), 1985. Engineering Supervision, Clearing and Plugging Sixty-Six
Abandoned Wells. August.
MacDonald, D.. et al. 2009. Advanced Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for
Aquatic Habitats with the Tri-State Mining District, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.
February.
MacDonald, D, et al., 2010. Advanced Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) for
aquatic Habitats within the Tri-State Mining District, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri.
Draft Final Technical Report. October, 2009 (revised May, 2010).
Nairn, Robert W,, 2012. Design, Construction and Evaluation of a Passive Treatment System for
Contaminated Mine Waters, Passive Treatment of Metal-Contaminated Mine Waters at
the Tar Creek Superfund Site.
Nairn, Robert W., Robert C. Knox, and William J. Matthews, 2014. Passive Treatment of
Contaminated Mine Waters: Evaluation of the Southeast Commerce Project. June.
• Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 1993. Technical Memorandum,
Sampling Results of Public Water Wells, August, 1992 to January, 1993, Tar Creek
Superfund Site. December 10.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2002a. Scope of Work Amendment,
Tar Creek Superfund Site, After Action Monitoring (V-006449). Draft. October.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2006a. Letter from David A. Gates,
FrET/ODEQ;--te'-U-rsuk-tennox/RPM''UT^7BPA;Tegarding±0ng'-fi0rw"'MoTOfofOT^Y'S,tofr
Round of Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2006) at Tar Creek, a part of After
Action Monitoring. August.
128
-------
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2006b. Technical Report After Action
Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma, September.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2007. Fish Tissue Metals Analysis in
the Tri-State Mining Area Follow-Up Study. September 14.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2008a. Letter from David A. Gates,
P. E./ODEQ, to Ursula Lennox/RPM U. S. EPA, regarding Long Term Monitoring (Tenth
Round of Semi-annual Roubidoux Sample, April 2008) at Tar Creek, a part of After
Action Monitoring. July 31.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2008b. Fish Consumption Guide for
the Tar Creek Area Including Grand Lake. August 5.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2009. Sampling and Analysis Plan,
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Extended After Action Monitoring of the Roubidoux Aquifer.
September 20.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2011. Letter from Angela Hughes
EPM/ODEQ to Ursula Lennox RPM/EPA, regarding Project Closeout Report; Lead
Impacted Communities Relocation Assistance Trust, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable
Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK. November 22.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2012a. Operations and Maintenance
Plan, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 1, Ottawa County, OK. November.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2012b. Justification for Updating
785:45 Appendix II, Beneficial Use Designations for Certain Limited Areas of
Groundwater. September.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2014a. After Action Monitoring of the
Roubidoux Aquifer at the Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, OK. December.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2014b, Environmental Protection
Agency Transfer of Remedial Action Activities to the Department of Environmental
Quality. September.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2015a. Roubidoux Well Plugging
Project, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, OK. April.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2015b. Quarterly Progress Report
October 1 to December 31, 2014, Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 4, Distal 6A,
Ottawa County, OK. January.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2015 c. Quarterly Progress Report
January I to March 31, 2014, Tar Creek Superfund Site Operable Unit 4, Distal 6A,
Ottawa County, OK. April.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), 2015d. Annual O&M
_ Reconnaissance 2013, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 1 (QUI). March.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2015e. Annual O&M
Reconnaissance 2014, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit I. (OU1). March.,.
129
-------
Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH). 2015. Oklahoma Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program. Table: Provisional Childhood Blood Lead Levels Ottawa County,
Tar Creek and Oklahoma 2007 - 2014. January 15.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB). 1991. Tar Creek After Action Monitoring Report.
April 5.
Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB), 2013. Title 785. Oklahoma Water Resources
Board, Chapter 45. Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards. July 1.
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (QTO). 2013. Water Assessment Report FY2012-20J3: Ambient
Surface Water Monitoring Program, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, December.
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory (RSKERI.), 1989. Tar Creek - The
Effectiveness of Remediation, September 6.
State of Oklahoma and Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (OK and QTO). 2014. Agreement Between
the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and the State of Oklahoma for Remediation of
Contaminated Properties at the Tar Creek Superfund Site. April,
Tar Creek Trustee Council (TCTC). 2014. Natural Resources Damages: Restoration and
Compensation Determination Plan. April.
Tribal Environmental Management Services, Inc. (TEMS). 2012. Assessment of Heavy Metals in
the Clay Fraction of Sediments Downstream of the Tar Creek Superfund Site in Northeast
Oklahoma. April.
Tribal Environmental Management Services, Inc. (TEMS). 2014. Analysis of Heavy Metals in
Culturally Significant Plants within the Grand Lake Watershed of Northeastern
Oklahoma, XXXX 2014.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), 2002. Supplementary Closeout Report, Tar Creek
Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. Final. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1984. Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative
Selection. June 6.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Five-year review, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1997. Record of Decision, Residential Areas,
Operable Unit 2, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August 27.
U. S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000a. Request for Approval of a Removal
Action at the Eagle-Picher Office Complex-Ahandoned Mining Chemicals (OU3),
Cardin, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. March 2.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000b. Five-Year Review, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000c. POLREP No. 1 (Removal). Memorandum
from Gary Moore/USEPA Region 6 On-Scene Coordinator to Director, Office of
Emefgeney^and-RemedmTRespoiise-,-Tegarding^E-agle=Picher0ffice-C-oinpfex-"
Abandoned Mining Chemicals Site, Cardin, Ottawa County, OK, April 4.
130
-------
U, S, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2000d. POLREP No. 2 and Pinal (Removal).
Memorandum from Gary Moore/US EPA Region 6 On-Scene Coordinator to Director,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, regarding Tar Creek Superfund Site:
Eagle-Picher Office Complex - Abandoned Mining Chemicals (OU3), Cardin, Ottawa
County, OK. June 1,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2001, Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance. EPA 540-R-01-007. June.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2004. Tar Creek (Ottawa County). Superfund
Site Status Summary. May 5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Five-Year Review, Tar Creek Superfund
Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Superfund Explanation of Significant
Difference for the Record of Decision: Tar Creek Superfund Site - Operable Unit 2,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. August.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2008. Record of Decision, Residential Areas,
Operable Unit 4, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. February 20.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010a. Superfund Explanation of Significant
Difference for the Record of Decision: Tar Creek Superfund Site - Operable Unit 4,
Ottawa County, Oklahoma. April,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010b. Tar Creek (Ottawa County) Oklahoma
Fact Sheet. January.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010c. Fourth Five-year review Report, Tar
Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, OK. September.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2013a. Remedial Action Project Completion
Report, Summary of Remedial Actions Completed April 2010 to September 2013: Tar
Creek Superfund Site - Operable Unit 2 Residential Remedial Action, Ottawa County,
Oklahoma. September,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013b. Changes to toxicity information found at
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/risk/human/rb-concentration_table/whatsnew.htm. May.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014a. Remedial Action Project Completion
Report, Summary of Remedial Actions Completed in 2014: Tar Creek Superfund Site -¦
Operable Unit 2 Residential Remedial Action, Ottawa County, Oklahoma. September.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2014b. Letter from John C. Meyer A.D./EPA
(6SF-R), to Kelly Dixon Division Director/ODEQ, regarding Contract Closure of EPA's
operations for Operable Unit 2 at the Tar Creek Site. July 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014c. Letter from John C. Meyer A.D./EPA .
(6SF-R), to Kelly Dixon Division Director/ODEQ, regarding Conclusion of Remedial
Action Activities at the Tar Creek Site Operable Unit 1. July 22.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2014d. Remedial Action Optimization Report,
Tar Creek Superfund Site, Operable Unit 4, Ottawa County, OK, September.
131
-------
U, S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), 2013, Tri-State Transition Zone Assessment Study:
Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. March.
van der Merwe, Deon, James W. Carpenter, Jerome C. Nietfeld, and John F. Miesner, 2011.
Adverse Health Effects in Canada Geese (Br ant a Canadensis) Associated With Waste
From Zinc and Lead Mines in the Tri-State Mining District (Kansas, Oklahoma, and
Missouri, USA). Journal of Wildlife Diseases, 47(3), pp. 650-660.
Washington Group International, 2002. Closeout Report for the Remedial Action of Residential
Properties, Tar Creek Superfund Site, Ottawa County, Oklahoma, October,
132
-------
Appendix C: Notices to the Public of Five-Year Review
Tkr Creek Superfund Site
PubBc Notice
Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality Begins 5*
Five Year Review of Site Remedy
November 2014
The Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ)
and United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is
beginning the fifth Five-Year Review
of the remedy, foe the Tkr Creek
Superfund Site (Site) in Ottawa
County, Oklahoma in November
2014. The review will evaluate
whether the remedy continues to be
protective of human health and the
environment, and will document the;
methods, findings, and conclusions
of the Five-Year Review »n a report.
The report will be available to tbe
public in September 2015. The
approximate 40square mile Site
is a former lead and zinc mining
area located in the Tri-Siate Mining
District. The cities' of Cardin,
Commerce, North Miami, Picher,
and Quapaw, as well as rural areas in"
northern Ottawa County, are located1!
within the Site boundaries. Elevated
levels of lead, zinc, and cadmium
exist in the mining waste and affect
tbe soils, ground water, surface
water, and sediments of the Site.
Hie Site is divided into Operable
Units
-------
Appendix I): Interviews Forms
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629S44
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date: 2/4/15
Contact .Made,By;
Name; Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email; brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N, Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: David Cates
Title: Professional Engineer
Organization: ODEQ
Email: david.cates@deq.ok.gov
Phone:(405)702-5124
Address: 707 N. Robinson, .
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
The work since 2010 entailed remedial actions for OU2 and OIJ4 and after action
monitoring for OU1, The work on OU2 residential cleanups has progressed to include
many of the outskirt towns in Ottawa County. This work is thought to be successful due
to the lack of complaints. The work on OU4 has been frustrating with cost overruns due
to inadequate site characterization and increased project scope due to removal of large
amounts of transition zone soils, unfinished work, landowner complaints, reluctance to
change remedial procedures to address our concerns, and more, all resulting in the state
refusing to provide any additional matching funds. This action has resulted positive
changes including use of soil amendments for metals sequestration instead of stripping
off the top soil. After Action monitoring has been successful in regard to sampling of the
Roubidoux wells but lack of adequate funding has resulted in some wells not getting
plugged.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
The residential remediation has been successful and more and more of the community
have asked for their yards to be sampled. The opposite is true for the OU4 non-residential
work where unfinished work and less productive land due to removal of transitional zone
soils (when other options existed) has led to property owners refusing to sign access
agreements,
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
134
-------
The down-stream tribes are concerned with continued leaching of metals and
contaminated sediments into Tar Creek that flows into areas of their jurisdiction. They
are also opposed to injection of fine tailings into the mine workings for fear of
contaminating the Roubidoux drinking water aquifer. The Quapaw Tribe and the State
would like to have more control (meaningful involvement) in future OU4 work.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
The OU4 stakeholders (the EPA, State, and Quapaw Tribe) meet monthly for conference
calls to discuss ongoing work. These meetings were more of a reporting about ongoing
work and less about obtaining meaningful Stakeholder input of what should be done.
These meetings were more frequent when more work was being conducted. The ODEQ
conducts annual O&M for the Douthat diversion dike and annual monitoring of a select
group of Roubidoux wells in the area. This activity was also more frequent previously.
As a result of EPA closing OU1. the scope will be reduced but periodic monitoring of a
few Roubidoux wells will be continued under a modified state O&M plan.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
I am not aware of any emergency responses since the last FYR. There was a tornado in
Quapaw in 2014 but am not sure of the response. There was a tornado in Picher in 2008
and flooding in Miami in 2007 that involved responses.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
I feel well informed about the Tar Creek activities but not so much for the Region 7
activities. Progress is slow at Tar Creek mainly due to the immense size of the site but
other factors play a role too, like obtaining property access on both fee land and restricted
Native American lands. Also the many complications related to performing Superfund
remediation on the restricted lands has resulted in slow progress. Also, complaints from
land owners about the work defects seem to take a long time to resolve,
7. Do you know of opportunities to optimize the operation, maintenance, or sampling
efforts at the site related to OU1, and have such changes been adopted?
All opportunities to optimize the O&M and After Action Monitoring (sampling) have
T5emMoptea"andlmplem£hted7Non^^
would have helped to better implement this phase of work. . :
135
-------
8. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the conclusion of
the fourth five-year review period (September 2010) which may have impacted
progress or resulted in a change in O&M procedures for the Roubidoux Monitoring
Program and the Admiralty diversion dike, conducted under OU1? Please describe
changes and impacts.
EPA intends to close out 01J1. As a result ODEQ will amend the O&M plan to include
the periodic sampling of several Roubidoux wells at the Tar Creek site. If abandoned
Roubidoux wells are discovered in the future as a result of ongoing OU4 remediation,
ODEQ will request funding from EPA under a cooperative agreement to evaluate and
plug the wells.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
With the success of the Mayer Ranch Passive Treatment System (PTS), it is thought that
mine water discharges should be addressed with similar systems to curtail the input of
metals loading to Tar Creek and other site streams. The ODEQ has entered into an
interagency agreement that will provide state funding to the University of Oklahoma to
develop a conceptual plan for a passive treatment system at the Southeast Commerce site;
to hire a design-build contractor to construct the PTS; and to conduct monitoring of the
system. Other mine water discharges that need to be addressed are at Douthat on Tar
Creek and at 50 Road on Beaver Creek. The runoff and leachate from chat piles along
Tar Creek needs to be addressed as well. :
10. A recommendation from the fourth five-year review report was that EPA should
complete an evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to
verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. To your knowledge, has this been completed? Please Explain.
No. A human health risk assessment for surface water and sediment in Tar Creek has not
yet been undertaken by EPA.
11. A recommendation from the fourth five-year review report was for ODEQ to
undertake field work to determine whether the 19 wells found in literature actually
exist, and evaluate whether plugging any wells found is warranted or feasible. To
your knowledge, has this been completed? How many wells did ODEQ plug since
the conclusion of the last five-year review period (September 2010)?
The ODEQ has begun the deep well evaluation task but this has not been completed. Two
wells were found and evaluated for plugging. Many of the wells are on restricted lands
for which the ODEQ does not have access. It is thought that many of these have actually
hefin^luggedin..theJS3fl&-as.-partofa-.iloodxont»i-project4n4he-T-ri-State-Minmg-
District funded by the Public Works Administration and managed by the USGS.
However, information on the identity of the 18 wells plugged in this program has been
136
-------
exceedingly difficult to obtain. In the last After Action Monitoring report it was
recommended that the Quapaw Tribe take over the plugging of wells on restricted lands.
..The two wells that ODEQ found on unrestricted property are the Tulsa Mine Well and
Netta-White well. The ODEQ plugged one of these (the Tulsa Mine Well at the Atlas
Chat pile) and the two powerhouse piezometers, but lacked adequate funding to include
additional wells in the contract. It is the opinion of ODEQ that the Netta-White well has
been plugged previously by Eagle-Picher and further plugging operations are not
necessary. The ODEQ has requested additional funding to complete plugging of wells on
unrestricted lands (e.g. the Quapaw #5 and Quapaw#2),
12. Are you aware of any incidents, complaints, or situations, in which citizens are
consuming or have consumed contaminated groundwater from either the Boone or
Roubidoux aquifers since the conclusion of the fourth five-year review period
(September 2010)?
I am not aware of any such incidences, However, the backup well for the Town of
Quapaw (Quapaw #2) has very poor water quality in terms of greater than secondary
MCLs for iron, sulfate, and TDS. As soon as the Town of Quapaw gets an alternate
source for their backup supply, this well should be plugged since it represents a source of
potential contamination of the Roubidoux aquifer. The Town has explored many options
to replace their backup well and the latest option is a new well being drilled by the water
district a few miles east of Quapaw. As required in the last Five-year review, institutional
controls in the form of new restrictions (i.e., testing requirements) were placed into the
Appendix H of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (OWRB) to protect people from
exposure to contaminated water from the Boone aquifer at the Tar Creek site. A
, supplemental / explanatory fact sheet was also placed on the ODEQ website.
137
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD '
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS HI
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.staniIa@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Dennis Datin
Title: Professional Engineer
Organization: ODEQ
Email: dennis.datin@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5125.
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
The work for OU2 has gone very well with a large number of properties cleaned up with
a minimal number of complaints. For OU4, the work has produced some good results at
certain locations but has caused some problems with a few individual property owners.
There is discussion related to removal of transition zone soils versus only removing the
visible chat. This is being addressed at the .current time. There was some problems with
getting vegetation established which is due to some rocky solid and very dry weather. At
least four or five sites needed to be revisited with additional work being done.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Effects on the surrounding community have been good for the economy and providing
work for people who reside in this area. A negative effect has been with a lot of truck
driving over the county roads which eventually cause them to be torn up and the county
has had to fix them. Also, there has been some trouble in getting access to some sites that
need cleanup.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
They are worried about the effect on the roads, with the increase in traffic. Some
individuals downstream of the site worry about the effects of the water quality
, downstream especially from the. injection,offine&.intQ.-.theBQ.on&.aq-iiifeL„„ —
138
-------
4, Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
There have been many meetings with EPA and others. The purpose was check on the
status of the remediation and resolves any problems that have or might arrive.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
There have been 2 or 3 wrecks between hauling trucks and other vehicle's at the site.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
I have been informed through meetings, emails, working with the RPM's and visits to the
site.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
This has been discussed with EPA, the tribes and others with the Remedial Action
Optimization Report being the result. Some of the changes that should be made are not to
remove the transition zone soils, redo the remedial action objectives for cadmium and
zinc and have more presence at the site of government personnel
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
No
9. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the conclusion of
the fourth five-year review period (September 2010) which have impacted progress
of the Remedial Aetion for OIJ2? Please describe changes and impacts.
What hinders the work is when someone whose property needs to be remediated either
did not turn it in or refused access during the time that EPA was doing the residential
remediation. '
139
-------
10. Do you know of opportunities to optimize the operation, maintenance, or sampling
efforts at the site related to OU2, and have such changes been adopted?
No
11. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
As stated above, the optimization report has some of the recommendations. I will relist
three of them here. This has been discussed with EPA, the tribes and others with the
Remedial Action Optimization Report being the result. Some of the changes that should
be made are not to remove the transition zone soils, redo the remedial action objectives
for cadmium and zinc and have more presence at the site of government personnel.
140
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD, .
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS 111
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Kelly Dixon
Title; LPD Division Director
Organization: ODEQ
Email: Kelly.dixon@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5151
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
A lot of money was spent on OUR 4 during this time. Work was completed on some
parcels but there were so many parcels open at once that not all of them were completed,
A comparison of the actual costs v the estimated costs in the ROD reveals that the work
conducted during this period was much more expensive than anticipated. It is not clear if
this was due to changed site conditions, inefficiencies, contract mechanisms or all of the
above, I am pleased with the efforts and some of the recommendations of the
optimization board to pause and work more cooperatively with all stakeholders on future
work, John Meyer with R6 especially has been helpful in articulating and helping to
affect some of these changes,
R6, especially Bob Sullivan, has worked hard to complete OU2 and made a lot of
progress. I appreciate the new direction of turning OU2 over to the state to manage in the
long term and am hopeful that this will continue to provide avenues to removing risk to
residents of Ottawa County.
2, From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Since I do not live there, I do not know. However, I believe that the continued cleanup of
the chat and soils are reducing risks to people and the environment and that the continued
cleanup of distal areas will have a positive impact on residents and landowners as it will
allow them to return land back to productive use.
141
-------
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so., please give details.
Property owners where cleanup was started but not finished were unhappy, I believe there
is a plan in place to finish those properties. I am hopeful going forward that work will be
conducted in a more measured manner, where timely and complete cleanups can occur
rather than starting many and not being able to complete them.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
No
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Yes and no. The state has not felt as it if has been treated as a true partner in the QU4
process. Despite routine phone calls, we feel as if our voices are not heard, and more than
once have been out of the loop on work in progress. We are hopeful that the new
• approach to the site will address these concerns and keep us engaged in a meaningful
way.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
Contract oversight and cost control were an issue for OU4 during this period. Unless
EPA fundamentally changes its approach to contract oversight and cost control, it is not
clear that this situation will improve on the projects that it manages. It would be helpful
to have an EPA RPM on-site and responsible for cost control and decisions in a similar
manner that OSCs are utilized on projects.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
I believe that EPA has worked hard to address issues at the site. The concerns expressed
here are not insurmountable and do not reflect lack motivation by staff; I think it is just
that the normal way of contracting, contract management and coordination is much more
complex on this site and needs to be managed differently. Since the buyout has been
completed, the immediate risk to residents has been mitigated. This allows time for all
stakeholders to slow down and be more thoughtful about how, where and when work is
performed and may lend itself to better coordination with natural resource trustees on
restoration projects. It is imperative that the state be treated as a partner on these projects
and we are looking forward to taking the lead on some of the projects,
142
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID U OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date: 1/29/15
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Rafael Casanova
Title: Environmental Scientist
Organization: EPA Region 6
Email: casanova.rafael@epa.gov
Phone: 214-665-7437
Address: 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200; Dallas, TX 75202-2733
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
The remedial actions conducted since the fourth FYR have significantly reduced the
blood-Pb levels at the Site.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Site operations have had a positive environmental impact on the surrounding
communities.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details. For OU 4, there are community concerns
regarding the removal of transition zone soils.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
I am not aware of an events, incidents, or activities at the site which required emergency
responses.
143
-------
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress sinee the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Yes, we are well informed about site activities,
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
The EPA is currently addressing the remedial actions concerning transition zone soils.
7. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
I have not been associated with any complaints or other incidents related to the Site and
requiring a response from the office.
8. The optimization report produced for OU4 included several priorities, one of which
was to "Leverage potential synergies with project team structure, roles, and
responsibilities". Is there any strategy in place to implement this priority?
The EPA is currently considering the recommendations provided in the Optimization
Report.
9. Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the conclusion of
the fourth five-year review period (September 2010) which have impacted progress
of the Remedial Action for OU4? Please describe changes and impacts.
I have not been involved with any problems or difficulties associated with OU 4 since the
conclusion of the fourth FYR Report.
10. A recommendation from the fourth five-year review report was that EPA should
complete an evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to
verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. To you knowledge, has this been completed? Please Explain.
It is my understanding that the remedial investigation for Operable Unit 5 has not been
initiated.
144
-------
11. Are you aware of any incidents, complaints, or situations, in which citizens are
consuming or have consumed contaminated groundwater from either the Boone or
Roubidonx aquifers since the conclusion of the fourth five-year review period
(September 2010)?
I am not aware of any incidents, complaints, or situations in which citizens are
consuming contaminated ground water since the conclusion of the Fourth FYR Report,
12. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
The use of soil amendments for addressing the transition zone soils will need to be
evaluated over a period of several years to determine if they are functioning as intended.
145
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfimd Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location; Ottawa County, OK
Date*.
Contact Made By;
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS 111
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone:(405)702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Rebecca Jim
Title: Executive Director
Organization: LEAD Agency
Email: rjim@neok.com
Phone: 918-542-9399 -
Address: 223 A. St. S.E., Miami,
OK
19289 South 4403 Dr., Vinita, OK
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
, First of all, we are still disappointed that nothing has been done about Tar Creek itself.
Toxic heavy metals continue to wash into the creek and flow downstream through our
communities, into the Neosho River and settle into the sediments of Grand and Hudson
Lakes as well as contaminate the fish rendering our water bodies unable to meet their
primary Beneficial Use of Fishable. We are grateful for the work that has been done and
understand the financial limits of funding and the need to sell the chat rather than
remediate the piles. We feel human health and the environment would be better protected
if funds were spent on preventing site runoff into the communities major water bodies
and diversion of mine water flows before clearing of chat bases. The continued cleanup
of yards is also very much appreciated by the communities and LEAD Agency. Our main
concern is exposure impacts to human health and environment. The issues above carry
importance to us and the community.
We are extremely supportive of the EPA for awarding the Quapaw Tribe contracts to
provide cleanup of tribal lands and hope their efforts will be rewarded with continued
work on the site.
2, From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Clearing-wavSte^pM€s--and---Gontaminated--soiLfrom-agrieulture4ands--is---importaBt'and
appreciated by community, but it needs to be left useable for agricultural purposes or for
" further uses, that would be safe for human health. Removing the families from the
146
-------
Picher/Cardin area for subsidence risk protected people and allows chat loaded truck
traffic to run through a much less populated area, and as such is more protective which is
much appreciated. Hiring of local workers is also a boon to the area economy and helps
put a good view on the Superfund effort. The Super fund Jobs Training Initiative was a
powerful experience for those who both tried out, but especially for those who completed
the training. It is hopeful that additional residents, will have the opportunity to. benefit
from future trainings.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
Our concerns focus on communication with the EPA and State which we feel is very slim
up until very recently. OU4 especially, has been a vague process for LEAD and we have
been in the dark nearly all the way so far. If we didn't host our annual conference we
would not know much at all. Despite our constant pleading, we are not given regular
updates nor can we even have our contact information as a citizen organization contact
consistently placed on public updates and handouts published by the EPA and state.
Citizens are not informed that they can contact us to stay informed or to join our group to
work more directly with the site. We are the. only Superfund Site where the local
community group is left out.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
We conduct regular site visits and guided tours for universities, both local and around the
country, area and state-wide schools, teachers, scientists, journalists from around the
country and world and many others throughout the year, year after year, We try to
communicate with EPA when they are in the area however we rarely know that they are
here because we are not contacted before coming or while they are here usually. If we see
something unusual or we have questions about what we see we call EPA or state to try
and get answers or tell them what we see.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
All unusual sightings are called in. None have required emergency response.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
No, we don't for reasons mentioned above. As a former TAG recipient and the only
community group organized to address the site, we feel we should be treated like such.
We have stated many times we would like a TAG grant for OU4 but have been met with
147
-------
disinterest and no official response. We are grateful for the updates that are provided at
our annual conference and will continue to provide EPA all the time they require to
inform the public during our event.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
See above. We would like to see better off-site management. We are extremely interested
in the continuation of OU2, the yard clean-up of lead contaminated yards in Ottawa
County, since only one fourth of the properties in the county have been tested thus far, we
hope that the hand over from EPA to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality will be smooth and that funding will continue for the cleanup of yards, until it has
been determined ALL have been remediated that require it. We would be glad to assist in .
promoting citizen participation.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
Complaints have to do with Tar Creek itself and the fact that nothing has changed and
people wondering if the fish are safe and if swimming is safe in Grand Lake, etc. With
orange water pouring through our communities it gives us worry and knowing the chat
runoff is un-abated.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
Nothing additional.
148
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location; Ottawa County, OK
Date; January 21,2015
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: briati.staiiila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Nancy John
Title: Environmental Director
Organization: Cherokee Nation
Email; nancy-john@cherokee.org
Phone: 918-453-5102
Address: PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
The work seems to be progressing. Chat piles are smaller than in the past.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Most of the OU2 yard waste identification and clean ups have been completed. There is
documented evidence of lower blood lead levels in the community.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
Yes. There is an untreated mine-water outflow adjacent to US Highway 69, also known
as historic Route 66, and the Commerce High School athletic fields. There are no signs or
fencing around the mine water. The untreated mine water outflow is scheduled (when
funded) to be part of a passive mine water treatment wetland south of US Highway 69,
also known as historic Route 66. These children, this community, and Route 66 visitors
are concerns for this location.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
Yes. There have been weekly, bi-weekly, then monthly conference calls for OU4 through
the period. The purpose of the calls is to keep all 'stakeholders5 informed about the
149
-------
activities occurring at the site. There have been a few tours of the site with EPA
representatives during this period. ' :
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
No.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Yes.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
No.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
No.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
See number 3 above.
150
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Kristi Laughlin
Title: Environmental Specialist
Organization: Eastern Shawnee
Tribe of Oklahoma
Email: klaughIin@estoo.net
Phone: 918-666-5151x1041
Address: 10080 S, Bluejacket Rd.
Wyandotte, OK 74370
QUESTIONS
1, What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
OU4 seemed to be more tedious than was previously planned. State participation in
activities has been beneficial, and I'm pleased with the work from the Qtiapaw Tribe,
2, From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Site operations have provided jobs in the community, but there has been elevated dust
and traffic from the trucks hauling to the repository. There have been some traffic
accidents too.
Cleanup of the site is comparable to the land of the surrounding community, which has
mostly been farmland. Cleanup so that the landowner can use the land is beneficial
realizing that some restrictions must be in place.
3, Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
Not at this time.
151
-------
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
No routine site visits are done by this office. We do participate in tours when offered by
EPA to look at the work that is being done. More meetings and tours would be beneficial,
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
We have not responded to any incidences.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
More information sharing would be beneficial.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
Not at this time.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
Not at this time.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
Not at this time.
152
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date: 12/22/14
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization; ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-513S
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Christen Lee
Title: Environmental Director
Organization: Wyandotte Nation
Email: clee@wyandotte-nation.org
Phone: 918-678-6341
Address: 64790 E Hwy 60
Wyandotte, OK 74370
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Overall, it seems much more daunting in its scale than everyone realized (OU4), I am
pleased so far with ODEQ's participation and the work the Quapaw Tribe has done.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Some issues with traffic and dust.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
The idea of multiple repositories, and the main one being in the flood plain.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
Only with EPA personal- set up as stakeholder meetings. More often would be beneficial.
153
-------
5.
Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
¦ ¦ None •
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
More stakeholder site meetings would be helpful,
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
. More information sharing with other stakeholders, public meetings.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses. .
Not from our office
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
We would like to see post environmental site monitoring i.e. Water, air....
154
-------
INTERVIEW- RECORD
Site Name; Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date: January 22,2015
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone:(405)702-5138
Address: 707 N, Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Ursula Lennox
Title: Remedial Project Manager
Organization: EPA Region (6SF-
RL)
Email: lennox.ursula@epa.gov
Phone: 214-665-6743
Address: 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202
¦ • QUESTIONS'
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Significant progress continues, to be made at the site since the 4th 5-Year Review Report.
' EPA has concluded the remedial action activities at Operable Unit 1 (OU1 - surface
water/ground water) and have transitioned this OU to the State; in tandem with the efforts
of ODEQ and the County Health Department, and the remediation of over 2 thousand
residential properties (OU2), the blood lead level of children is below the National
average; the voluntary buyout of the towns of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville. have
greatly reduced the chances of exposure, and, with the threat of exposure greatly reduced,
the remedy for Operable Unit 4, that addresses mine and mill waste, can be performed
over a longer period.
Region 6 negotiated a $2.6 million cooperative agreement with the Quapaw Tribe
Environmental Office to conduct the remediation of a 40 acre parcel of tribal land known
as the 'Catholic 40' within the Tar Creek Superfund Site. This was the first time that a
Tribe is carrying out a Superfund Remedial Action in the U.S.
EPA is also working with EPA-HQs' Optimization Team and the stakeholders involved
with OU4 to prioritize contaminated areas in flood zones, near waterways, and in riparian
areas. Measures are also being evaluated in determining the best approach to address
transition zone soils.
155
-------
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Land contaminated with mine and mill waste, is now remediated and with proper
maintenance, this remediated land provides additional acreage landowners will eventually
utilize for agriculture and/or grazing. For land containing marketable chat, EPA
facilitated chat sales between the property owner and purchaser, and transported the
material to the designated location. Property owners were kept abreast throughout of the
entire process and provided the appropriate documentation and fact sheets related to the
response action and what to expect. These remedial actions benefited the land owners and
surrounding community, because it removes the risk of exposure and protects human
health and the environment.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
EPA has not received any community concerns. However, some property owners where
work was performed were concerned with the removal of top soil during the remedial
action. The top soil needed to be removed because it was contaminated.
4. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
•No..
5. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Absolutely. The project managers participate in weekly and monthly calls with
stakeholders to discuss and hear the status on site activities; EPA and ODEQ
Management conducts monthly calls to discuss the status/challenges/plan of actions
related to Superfund sites in Oklahoma; EPA and other stakeholders present power point
. presentations at the .annual Tar. Creek conference that is hosted by the L.E.A.D, agency
each year; EPA conducts availability sessions for the public in order to seek answers to
questions they may have related to site activities, etc.
6. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
Yes. It is important that all stakeholders stay abreast on site developments, to minimize
delays in various response actions.
156
-------
7, Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
Yes, When work stopped on unrestricted properties in April 2013, EPA received several
complaints from property owners and received several inquiries from elected officials,
EPA,met with the property owners and elected officials and outlined a plan of action and
implemented it. The majority of those involved were satisfied with the end result.
8, The optimization report produced for OU4 included several priorities, one of which
was to "Leverage potential synergies with project team structure, roles, and
responsibilities". Is there any strategy in place to implement this priority?
Yes. The approach has been presented to ODEQ, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, EPA's
Contractor, and the Stakeholders that are involved on this project. The approach is
dynamic and will be refined as discussions between the stakeholders and the EPA-HQ!s
Optimization Team continue.
9, Are you aware of any problems or difficulties encountered since the conclusion of
the fourth five-year review period (September 2010) which have impacted progress
of the Remedial Action for OU4? Please describe changes and impacts.
Though challenges have continuously evolved throughout the implementation of the
remedial action for OU4, progress continues to be achieved. Some of the challenges
encountered included securing access agreements on restricted properties, encountered
greater volumes of waste material and transition zones soils than what was projected in
the OU4 ROD, encountering shallow bedrock during the remedial action, and securing
state funds to complete site work.
10, A recommendation from the fourth five-year review report was that EPA should
complete an evaluation of current surface water and sediment data for Tar Creek to
verify that no unacceptable risks to human health and the environment exist in Tar
Creek. To you knowledge, has this been completed? Please Explain.
It is my understanding that Regions 6, 7, and the States are coordinating this effort.
11, Are you aware of any incidents, complaints, or situations, in which citizens are
consuming or have consumed contaminated groundwater from either the Boone or
Roubidoux aquifers since the conclusion of the fourth five-year review period
(September 2010)?
I have not received any complaints from citizens related to this question.
157
-------
12. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
It is important to keep all stakeholders, property owners, and the public informed on work
that is being performed; make sure property owners are aware of their role related to
.. ensuring the implemented remedy maintains its effectiveness; and utilize an access . .
agreement that allows an area to be both assessed and remediated.
158
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Larry Tippit
Title: Environmental Specialist
Organization: Peoria Tribe of
Indians of Oklahoma
Email: Itippit@peoriatribe.com
Phone: 918-540-2535 ex. 17
Address: 118 S. Eight tribes Trail
-Miami, OK. 743S4
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Much of the EPA remediation work has been performed in a hap-hazard manner with
little thought to future effects to the environment or area residents. As in OU4 with the
chat fine injections into water-filled underground mine caverns, and chat filling of open
pits, shafts, and subsidence's, most of which are water filled and directly connected with
the underlying water table (Boone aquifer), higher levels of contamination and hydraulic
pressures from the fill will ultimately increase the area and scope of contamination. Also
the distinct probability of cross contamination of the Rubidoux aquifer is increased. At
least two Tribal members' drinking water wells have become heavy metal contaminated,
and at least two noticeable contaminated seeps have been documented on Spring River at
a point just below where mine shafts and open pits were chat filled.
The EPA Chat Repository for chat removal borders and is uphill from already
contaminated Tar Creek, and the leachate drains for that repository are in the Tar Creek
flood plain.
Work contracted by EPA to "qualified" contractors has been at times sub-contracted to
unqualified contractors. The results have been that sub-contractors were either under
paid, not paid, or did not effectively accomplish contracted jobs. Remediation funding
was not judiciously used, and time and money were not used effectively.
Funding provided for the Picher Buy-Out and the actual buy-out did not seem to
correlate: '
159
-------
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
From my perspective, many people/families directly impacted have been unimpressed or
dissatisfied with remediation efforts and results. Some others have been made greedy,
trying to take advantage of funding provisions for cleanup / buy-out / remediation.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
Probably the biggest concerns that I am aware of is the threat and/or possibility of the
cross contamination of the Rubidoux aquifer source of drinking water, and the
contamination of Spring River and Grand Lake, as fishing and recreation resources.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
The Peoria Tribe Environmental Department regularly takes water samples from Spring
River, Tar Creek and other tributaries in our tribal jurisdiction. We have also taken
extensive pore water samples this past year on Spring River. The purpose is to determine
levels of contaminants in those water sources, and with the pore water sampling, to track
the movement of contaminants from the Kansas / Oklahoma state line to Grand Lake. We
have also sampled mussel tissue and mussel, shells from Spring River to determine heavy
metal contamination. Consistently, we have found high levels of zinc concentrations in
the water samples, and zinc toxicity in mussel tissue and zinc concentrations in mussel
shells.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
No.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Not always. EPA Dallas Region 6 not always forthcoming with their plans. They do hold
monthly stakeholders conference calls which we try to monitor, but because of our work
load and schedule we are not always a party to those calls. Sometimes they make
adjustments to their activities without informing all the stakeholders. Sometimes they are
not transparent in all their activities.
160
-------
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
The Peoria Tribe has written numerous letters concerning issues we have had with
Region 6 activities, Sometimes we have received a reply, but more times, have not. Our
letters/correspondence/opinions, even tribal needs, seem to be of no concern or value to
the EPA Regions.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
One specific contact was of a tribal member whose drinking water well became lead
contaminated. The individual had a new well drilled and it too was contaminated. He
contacted the Peoria Environmental Department, Wyandotte Environmental Department,
Quapaw Environmental Department, and Indian Health Services. The Peoria
Environmental Department contacted an EPA official and was told to either get the
individual's home on a rural water district, or furnish his household bottled water. The
Peoria Environmental Department does not know what actions the other Tribal
Environmental Departments took. EPA acknowledged no responsibility / liability or
further concern, nor did any further investigation. The individual resided within the
Peoria Tribal jurisdiction, but was a member of a different tribe. The location of his
dwelling is near the northeast Oklahoma / Missouri State line, and south west of the
Newton / Jasper Counties, MO. Superfund site and remediation activities. Remediation
actions there consisted of filling open, water filled pit mines and subsidences. Those
features were in direct connection with the Boone Aquifer which flows toward the
southwest, into Oklahoma.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
The Peoria Environmental Department suggestion:
Instead of hauling chat to repositories or underground dumping, start paving all roads
from the OU4 site outward. Chat can safely be encapsulated in pavement and roadbeds.
Using the existing chat in pavement would (1) eliminated the aboveground chat in a safe
method; (2) provide work for paving crews which would in turn help the economic
situation in the poorer Ottawa County; (3) lessen the cost of road building, because
nearby building material would be cheaper and wouldn't have to be hauled so far; (4)
increase the land values adjacent to paved roads; (5) protect the ground water because no
more contaminants are being dumped into it, and there would be no more leachate from
chat piles ; (6) improve ground water quality, because the recharge of the aquifer would
serve to dilute the existing contamination.
Southwest Missouri is seeking a water supply source for the city of Joplin, MO. and other
communities in the area. If a viable and economical means of removing heavy metal
contaminants from the existing mine pool in the Picher area, a water treatment facility
161
-------
could pump water from that existing mine pool, treat the water, and pipeline it to the
Joplin area. This would not only supply water to the Southwest Missouri area, but as
water was pumped from the mine pool, natural recharge would serve to dilute the
contamination therein, thereby consistently reducing the contaminant load of the
. extracted water, and the cost associated with the water treatment. Building a pipeline,
water treatment plant, and operating and maintaining the infrastructure would also
provide employment and boost the economic situation in Northeastern Oklahoma.
162
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location; Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By;
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian,staniIa@deq.ok.gov
Phone; (405) 702-5138
Address; 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Heather Webb
Title: Environmental Director
Organization: Miami Tribe of OK
Email: hwebb@miamination.com
Phone: 918-541-1373
Address: PO Box 1326
Miami, OK 74355
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
I have been employed in the Miami Tribe Environmental Department since August 2011,
The Tar Creek Superfund Site is directly east of our tribal jurisdictional lands. Since I've
started, there has been little or no communication with EPA regarding the site, except for
a few meetings with Ursula Lennox. We had to invite ourselves to participate on the OU4
conference calls in December and January, So I have had to play a lot of catch-up, BUT,
still glad we are now being included in the informational calls. Hopefully, I will be able
to give an impression on the 6th Five-year review.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
The only thing 1 am extremely concerned with is the water coming from the repository
that eventually flows into Tar Creek. Hopefully this will be addressed and fixed soon. We
are trying to keep the contamination out of the creeks, not make it worse via route of the
solution. Any contamination in the creeks is going to affect the community and the
communities that have waterways south that TAR Creek flows into.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
We speak Tor our tribal communities^ They -know about-the- Superfund-site but chose to
ignore the effects. We are their voice and hopefully our concerns are being addressed as
163
-------
the overall communities concerns. They don't have the background and environmental
education so they leave those priorities to the department to address.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
We had one meeting with Ursula a while back and she went over some of what they were
doing, But that was before the Quapaw tribe was involved in the remediation. The other
tribes wanted information so she scheduled a meeting with all of us in a trailer close to
the site. Since then, we invited ourselves to be on the 0134 conference calls. We had to
invite ourselves because Ursula didn't seem to want us involved.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
No,
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
Well no. It's EPA's idea that the contamination doesn't exist outside the superfund site,
so the neighboring tribes have not been involved in information sharing about the site.
This needs to change. Just being able to be in on the OU4 conference calls would be a
great way for us to keep informed.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
None at this time. Besides doing something about the water coming from the repository.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
We have not heard about anything.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
Fix the water from the repository. Include downstream tribes in information sharing calls.
164
-------
INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location: Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By:
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email: brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-513E
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Suzanne Dunn
Title: Biologist
Organization: USFWS
Email:. Suzaipie_dunn@fws.gpv
Phone: 918382.4521
Address; 9014 H 21st Street Tulsa,
OK 74129
QUESTIONS
1» What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five-year review period (September 2010)?
The first thing that comes to mind is that EPA should do the cleanup in an orderly
manner. The cleanup of-properties should start near the OK/KS boarder and progress
south from there, or some other logical progression, I understand the need to work with
landowners to gain access; however, my impression is that if a landowner won't grant
EPA access, then that property is "skipped". This leaves an island of contamination that,
exposes wildlife to risk and can re-contaminate other areas that have been cleaned up.
In addition, EPA has reduced sampling efforts so they won't detect where the
contaminants have come to be located. The transition zones around the chat piles are
known to extend out a great distance, up to 600 ft. in some areas and on average 164 ft. in
pasture and 175 ft. in wooded areas (FWS 2013). Reduced sampling efforts during the
removal phase are irresponsible and allows for potentially high levels of contamination to
be left on site.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
I do not live in the community directly impacted by the site, but I work with many who
do live in the area. Comments about reduced home values and reduced use of the natural
resources have been discussed.
165
-------
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
The majority of the complaints I heard were related to OU2 clean up around the homes.
In general, people seem content with the OU4 administration on site with some
complaints about the heavy trucks on roads and fugitive dust.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general, please
describe the purpose and results.
Yes, the FWS has conducted numerous studies at the site. The final reports are located at
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/nrdar.htm
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five-year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
No
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth live-year review period (September 2010)?
Yes, EPA and ODEQ have provided progress reports at meetings and via phone and/or e-
mail whenever asked.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
I suggest that EPA Region 6 work closely with EPA Region 7.1 have been told that the
two regions are working together; however, it is not apparent given the progress at the
Treece site and the lack of progress immediately across the state line at the Tar Creek
site. This is also true for the current and future work for OU5. Region 7 is on schedule to
have a ROD for sediments by 2015. Region 6 will not confirm if they will adopt Region
7s ROD or if they are going to do their own. If Region 6 does their own ROD, this would
waste taxpayer funds and possibly result in different clean up levels between the Regions.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses.
No
166
-------
Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
I reiterate my comment from question 7. EPA Regions 6 and 7 should work in tandem
with each other to have a uniform cleanup and reduce costs.
167
-------
' INTERVIEW RECORD
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
EPA ID # OKD980629844
Location; Ottawa County, OK
Date:
Contact Made By;
Name: Brian Stanila
Title: EPS III
Organization: ODEQ
Email; brian.stanila@deq.ok.gov
Phone: (405) 702-5138
Address: 707 N. Robinson,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73101
Individual Contacted:
Name: Ramie Tirres
Title: Program Grant consultant
Organization: Ottawa County
Health Department
Email: remedios@health.ok.gov
Phone: 918-540-2481 ext.210
Address: 1930 N, Elm Street
Miami, OK 74354
QUESTIONS
1. What is your overall impression of the work conducted on site since the conclusion
of the fourth five year review period (September 2010)?
The work done has reduced the blood lead levels of children in Ottawa County,
Remediation of residential properties, community education and screening has had a
great impact in the community. There is still much more work to be done to continue to
bring the children's blood lead levels down.
2. From your perspective, what effects have site operations had on the surrounding
community?
Positive effect. Children's blood lead levels have dropped. People in the area have
increased knowledge of the lead problems through education, health fairs and screening.
The community is very much concerned regarding soil contamination (health impact in
planting a garden) and also the consumption of fish due the amount of lead levels.
3. Are you aware of any community concerns regarding the site or its operation and
administration? If so, please give details.
The community is still very much concerned with soil contamination, lead poisoning and
in some cases increased lead levels in young children.
4. Have there been routine communications or activities (site visits, inspections,
reporting, etc.) conducted by your office regarding the site? In general,^please
describe the purpose and results.
J 68
-------
Ottawa County Health Department has conducted ongoing community lead poisoning
prevention health educational activities, childhood lead poisoning prevention education
and blood screening activities and follow-up case management and monitoring of -
children with elevated blood lead levels.
5. Are you aware of any events, incidents, or activities at the site that has required
emergency responses from your office since the conclusion of the last five year
review period (September 2010)? If so, please give details.
The town of Quapaw was hit by a tornado in 2014. Ottawa County Health Department
sent our Medical Emergency Response team.
6. Do you feel well informed about the site's activities and progress since the
conclusion of the fourth five year review period (September 2010)?
The yearly-Tar Greek Conference is very informative as well as some newspaper articles.
7. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site's
management and operation?
The Last-Chance Yard Cleanup offered to the community by EPA has encouraged our
local residents to participate. This effort needs to be continued so more of our community
can participate in order to bring the children's blood lead levels down as well as to
continue educating and bringing awareness to our community of the lead problem.
8. Have there been any complaints, violations, or other incidents related to the site
requiring a response by your office? If so, please give details of the events and
results of the responses,
A child was tested for lead at the Health Dept. and the result was high, Parents were very
much concerned. With the help of LEAD Agency, Inc., a home visit was made to check
for lead in the paint. DEQ came out to check the yard and water. The home was an older
home and has been repainted so no lead was detected inside.
9. Do you have any comments, suggestions, or recommendations regarding the site?
It would be good to continue blood lead screening and monitoring children with elevated
blood lead levels. Continuing community outreach and education is important to keep the
blood levels of children down.
169
-------
Appendix E: Site Inspection Checklist
I. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW SITE INSPECTION CHECKLIST
Site Name: Tar Creek Superfund Site
Date of Inspection: January 14-16, 2015
Location and Region: Ottawa County, Oklahoma
(Region 6)
EPA ID: OKD980629844
Agency leading the five-year review: Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
Weather/temperature: TBD
Remedy Includes: (Check all that apply)
1^1 Landfill cover/containment
1X1 Access controls
IXI Institutional controls
Groundwater pump-and-treatment
IXI Surface water collection and treatment
IXI Other- ground water monitoring, surface water diversion, excavation and relocation
Attachments*. X Inspection team roster attached X Site map attached to report
II. INTERVIEWS (Check all that apply)
2. O&M
Interviewed: [X] by e-mail Q at office Q by phone Email.
Problems, suggestions: [X! Reports attached in Attachment 3
3. Local regulatory authorities and response agencies (i.e.; State and Tribal offices, emergency
response office, police department, office of public health or environmental health, zoning office,
recorder of deeds, or other city and county offices, etc.). Fill in all that apply.
Agency: Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
Contact: Dennis Datin and David Cates
X Reports attached in Attachment X
Agency; Environmental Protection Agency
Contact: Bob Sullivan, Rafael Casanova, and Katrina Coltrain
1X1 Reports attached in Attachment X . ..
Agency: Members of Oklahoma Trustee Council
170
-------
3 Reports attached in Attachment X
4. Other interviews (optional):
Rebecca Jim (LEAD Agency)
III. ON-SITE DOCUMENTS & RECORDS VERIFIED (Check all that apply)
1. O&M Documents
I I O&M manual (long term monitoring plan)
I I As-built drawings
~ Maintenance logs
~ Readily available ~ Up to date [>3 N/A
I I Readily available ~ Up to date N/A
~ Readily available ~ Up to date [X] N/A
Remarks: There are no on-site facilities and therefore no records are maintained at the Site. Records
documents are maintained at EPA and ODEQ,
2. Site-Specific Health and Safety Plan ~ Readily available
I I Contingency plan/emergency response plan ~ Readily available
Remarks: All projects operate under general health and safety plans.
Up to date ~ N/A
Up to date ~ 'N/A
3. O&M and OSHA Training Records :
Remarks:
I I Readily available ~ Up to date [X] N/A
4. Permits and Service Agreements
I I Air discharge permit
~ Effluent discharge
~ Waste disposal, POTW
I I Other permits
Remarks:
PI Readily available ~ Up to date [3 N/A
Readily available H Up to, date . 1X1 N/A
Readily available ~ Up to date Tx] N/A
Up to date . 13 N/A
Readily available
5. Gas Generation Records
date X N/A
Readily available : ~ Up to
6, Settlement Monument Records
1 I Readily available
Up to date fX] N/A
7. Groundwater Monitoring Records [X] Readily available £><3 Up to date O N/A
There are five After Action Monitoring Reports that document annual Roubidoux sampling events.
8. Leachate Extraction Records
Readily available
~j Up to.date., ^ N/A
171
-------
9. Discharge Compliance Records
~ Air
I I Water (effluent)
Remarks;
Readily available ~ Up to date N/A
Readily available Q Up to date [>| N/A
10. Daily Access/Security Logs
Readily available j_J Up to date
N/A
IV. O&M COSTS
1. O&M Organization
' Q State in-house
Contractor for PRP
Contractor for State
PRP in-house
Other: Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and ODEQ
2. O&M Cost Records-
! I Readily available [3 Up to date [[] Funding mechanism/agreement in place
I I Original O&M cost estimate ^Breakdown attached
Total annual State cost by year for OU1 O&M
Date Date Total Cost
From 2009 to 2010
$0
From
2010
to
2011
$0
From
2011
to
2012
$0
From
2012
to
2013
$1,157.68
From
2013
to
2014
$64.32
~ Breakdown attached
~ Breakdown attached
n Breakdown attached
Breakdown attached
I I Breakdown attached
3. Unanticipated or Unusually High O&M Costs During Review Period
None
¦ V. ACCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
3 Applicable O N/A
A. Fencing
1, Fencing damaged Q,iQeation,shown.m.site-map ,Q. Gates .secured .N/A:..
Remarks: CMR gates secured '
172
-------
B.
Other Access Restrictions
1.
Signs and other security measures
Remarks: CMR signs posted
Location shown on site map X N/A
C.
Institutional Controls
1. Implementation and enforcement
Site conditions imply institutional controls not properly implemented I I Yes
Site conditions imply institutional controls not being fully enforced [~1 Yes
No
No
N/A
N/A
There are deed notices placed on LICRAT buyout homes and contaminated soil repositories.
Type of monitoring (e.g., self-reporting, drive by): General site visits
Frequency: multiple times per year
Responsible party/agency: EPA/ODEQ
Contact: not applicable
Reporting is up-to-date
Reports are verified by the lead agency
Specific requirements in deed or decision documents have been met
Violations have been reported
Other problems or suggestions: Q Report attached
Yes
Yes
3 Yes
Yes
~ No
~ No
~ No
~ No
SI N/A
M n/a
N/A
IEI n/a
2, Adequacy
Remarks:
1X1 Institutional controls are adequate Q Institutional controls are inadequate
~n/a
D. General
1, Vandalism/trespassing . l] Location shown on site map
. No vandalism evident.
Remarks: While vandalism related to the Site remedy is generally not present, nuisance behavior
¦persists. This-behavior-ineiudes-iHegal-dumping-and-teespassing-onto-ehat-piles-andremediated--iareasr
For example, it is clear that the use of ATV vehicles is present on a filled subsidence in Hockerville.
173
-------
2. 'Land use changes on-site ' [I] "N/A EX] Land use changes evident
Remarks: Most land use on the Site is rural-residential and agricultural. However, there are mixed
areas of residential/commercial. Land use has changed at the Site due to removal and remedial
activities. Below is a brief summary of general land use change at the Site.
The LICRAT has voluntarily relocated all of the residents of Pieher, OK, and Treece, KS. Homes of
former residents have been demolished and disposed. Treece, KS was purchased by the Quapaw
Tribe in 2013. Intended land use is agricultural.
Chat piles and contaminated soils were removed from rural-residential properties. Remediated
properties were vegetated and have agricultural use. Contaminated soils and chat were placed in
repositories constructed from subsidence holes, old mill ponds, and chat bases. Repositories have
limited agricultural use and have deed notices filed on them.
3.
Land use changes off-site X N/A
Remarks:
VI. general site conditions
Roads |3 Applicable
~ N/A
Roads damaged 0 Location shown on site map
Remarks: Roads are publicly owned and maintained.
[R1 Roads adequate
~ N/A
B.
Other Site Conditions [X] ' Applicable
~ N/A
Remarks:
OU2 Repository (Adams) - Fenced and behind locked gate. Good vegetative growth present on site.
OU2 Repository (Stateline) - Fenced and behind locked gate. Good vegetative growth. Owned by
Quapaw Tribe.
OU4 Repository- Fenced and behind locked gate. No final cap established and no vegetative growth.
VII. LANDFILL COVERS [^Applicable
3 n/a
A.
Landfill Surface
1.
Settlement (Low spots) Q Location shown on site map
Areal extent Depth
Settlement not evident
Remarks:
2.
Cracks ~ Location shown on site map
Cracking not evident
Lengths ' Widths
Depths
Remarks:
174
-------
3. Erosion
Areal extent.
Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map EH Erosion not evident
'Depth , _
4. Holes
Areal extent,
Remarks:
I I Holes evident
Holes not evident
Depth,
5, Vegetative Cover Q Grass
~
locations on a diagram)
Remarks:
I I Cover properly established Q No signs of stress
Trees/Shrubs (indicate size and
6. ¦ Alternative Cover (armored rock, concrete, etc.) Q N/A
Remarks:
1
Bulges
Areal extent.
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Depth.
Bulges not evident
8.
Wet Areas/Water Damage
f~1 'Wet "areas
I I Ponding
I I Seeps
Soft subgrade
Remarks:
Wet areas/water damage not evident
Location shown on site map
Location shown on site map
Location shown on site map
Location shown on site map
I I Areal extent.
I I Areal extent.
I I Areal extent _
~ Areal extent,
9. Slope Instability
Slides
No evidence of slope instability
Location shown on site map
Areal extent
Remarks:
B.
benches Q Applicable Q N/A
Horizontally constructed mounds of earth placed across a steep landfill side slope to interrupt the slope in order to slow
down the velocity of surface runoff and intercept and convey the runoff to a lined channel.)
1. Flows Bypass Bench
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map ~ N/A or okay
2, Bench Breached
Remarks:
l~1 Location shown on site map . Q N/A or okay
175
-------
Bench Overtopped
Remarks:
Location shown on site map Q N/A or okay
C. Letdown Channels ! I Applicable
N/A
1. Settlement
Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map Q No evidence of settlement
2. Material Degradation Q Location shown on site map
Material type Areal extent
Remarks:
No evidence of degradation
3. Erosion
Areal extent.
Remarks:
Location shown on site map ~ No evidence of erosion
Depth
4, Undercutting
Areal extent _
Remarks:
O Location shown on site map Q No evidence of undercutting
' ' Depth " ¦¦
5. Obstructions Type.
No obstructions
I I Location shown on site map
Areal extent.
Remarks:
Size
6. Excessive Vegetative Growth Type.
No evidence of excessive growth
Location shown on site map
~ Vegetation in channels does not obstruct flow
Areal extent
Remarks:
1). Cover Penetrations
Applicable
N/A
1. Gas Vents
I I Properly secured/locked Q Functioning O Routinely sampled
HI Evidence of leakage at penetration
Remarks:
~ Needs O&M
I I Good condition
E] N/A
2. Gas Monitoring Probes
~ IIWW.W UH'I I }
Properly secured/locked | | Functioning Routinely sampled | | Good condition
^ Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs O&M [>3 N/A
Remarks:
3. Monitoring Wells (within surface area of landfill) ...
I I Evidence of leakage at penetration Q Needs O&M I I N/A
Remarks:
176
-------
5. Settlement Monuments ~ Located O Routinely surveyed
Remarks:
N/A ¦ ' ¦
E, Gas Collection and Treatment
Applicable
N/A
4. Leaehate Extraction Wells _
Properly secured/locked Q Functioning O Routinely sampled
Evidence of leakage at penetration [~| Needs O&M
Remarks:
Good condition
~ n/a
1. Gas Treatment Facilities
I I Flaring
[H Good condition
Remarks:
I I Thermal destruction
~ Needs O&M
Collection for reuse
2. Gas Collection Wells, Manifolds, and Piping
Remarks:
Good condition ~ Needs O&M
3. Gas Monitoring Facilities (e.g., gas monitoring of adjacent homes or buildings)
~ Needs O&M ~ N/A
Good condition
Remarks:
F. Cover Drainage Layer
Applicable
~ N/A
1. Outlet Pipes Inspected
Remarks:
Functioning
~ N/A
2. Outlet Rock Inspected
Remarks:
M Functioning
N/A
G. Detention/Sedimentation Ponds
Applicable [J N/A
1. Siltation
~ N/A
Remarks:
Areal extent
I I Siltation not evident
Size
2. Erosion Areal extent
~ Erosion not evident
Remarks:
Depth.
3. Outlet Works
Remarks:
HI Functioning
N/A
177
-------
4. .Dam Q Functioning
Remarks:
N/A
H. Retaining Walls
Applicable 1 i N/A
1. Deformations
Horizontal displacement.
Rotational displacement.
Remarks:
Location shown on site map | [ Deformation not evident
Vertical displacement __
2. Degradation
Remarks:
O Location shown on site map
Degradation not evident
L Perimeter Ditches/Off-Site Discharge O Applicable
N/A
1. Siltation
Areal extent.
Remarks:
~ Location shown on site map |~] Siltation not evident
Depth ______
2. Vegetative Growth ~ Location shown on site map - Q N/A
I I Vegetation does not impede flow
Areal extent Type
Remarks: ¦ - ¦ • - ••• •• ¦¦ ¦ - - - - ¦.
3. Erosion
Areal extent.
Remarks:
Location shown on site map
Depth
Erosion not evident
4. Discharge Structure
Remarks:
I I Functioning
N/A
VOL VERTICAL BARRIER WALLS
Applicable
N/A
1, Settlement
Areal extent _
Remarks:
I I Location shown on site map
Depth
Settlement not evident
2. Performance Monitoring Type of monitoring.
j i Performance not monitored Frequency .
Head differential
Remarks:
j I Evidence of breaching
IX. GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER REMEDIES Z
Applicable. N/A
A. Groundwater Extraction Wells, Pumps, and Pipelines
K Applicable
N/A
1. Pumps, Wellhead Plumbing, and Electrical
378
-------
2 Good condition Q ¦ All required wells located [j Needs
O&M ~ N/A
Remarks: Groundwater/ Surface water remedy at the Site is the Meyer Ranch Passive Treatment
System (PTS), The PTS consists of an initial oxidation pond and then a series of wetland/surface '
flow ponds, vertical flow bio-reactors, re-aeration ponds, horizontal flow limestone beds, and a
polishing pond/wetland. The goal of the PTS is to eliminate heavy metal contamination from the
groundwater discharges to surface water. The PTS has successfully done this at a low cost.
Plow into the oxidation pond is artesian. Wind and solar power are used in re-aeration ponds.
2. Extraction System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
3 Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks:
Spare Parts and Equipment
[X] Readily available [X] Good condition Q Requires upgrade Q Needs to be provided
Remarks:
B. Surface Water Collection Structures, Pumps, and Pipelines (3 Applicable Q N/A
1. Collection Structures, Pumps, and Electrical
3 Good condition Q Needs O&M
Remarks: Series of wetland/surface flow ponds, .re-aeration ponds, and vertical flow bio-reactors are
present as part of the surface water treatment train.
2. Surface Water Collection System Pipelines, Valves, Valve Boxes, and Other Appurtenances
3 Good condition ~ Needs O&M
Remarks: Presumed to be in good condition but are not visible.
3. Spare Parts and'Equipment
IXI Readily available [X] Good condition Q Requires upgrade l~T Needs to be provided
Remarks: Operations agreement with City of Commerce. PTS is regularly inspected by Commerce.
C. Treatment System[XI Applicable N/A
1. Treatment Train (Check components that apply)
[X] Metals removal (H Oil/water separation [X] Bioremediation
1 1 Air stripping O Carbon absorbers
I I Filters
fx] Additive (e.g., chelation agent, flocculent) pll management
1X1 Others . . . Passive aeration, system
1X1 Sampling ports properly marked and functional
f~1 Sampling/maintenance log displayed and up to date
179
-------
Equipment properlv identified
1 1 Quantity of groundwater treated annually
1 1 Quantity of surface water treated annually
¦Remarks: Metals removal occurs in oxidation pond, vertical flow bio-reactors,
limestone beds. Additive occurs vertical flow bio-reactors.
re-aeration ponds, and
2. Electrical Enclosures and Panels (Properly rated and functional)
N/A [>3 Good condition CD Needs O&M .
Remarks: Most electrical equipment run by solar panels and windmill
3. Tanks, Vaults, Storage Vessels
1 1 N/A 13 Good condition [X] Proper secondary containment Needs
O&M
Remarks:
4. Discharge Structure and Appurtenances
d] N/A 13 Good condition Needs O&M
Remarks: Outflow pipe from wetland pond. Approximately 8" in diameter.
5. Treatment Building(s)
X N/A ~ Good condition (esp. roof and doorways)
1 1 Chemicals and equipment properly stored
Remarks:
fl Needs repair
6. Monitoring Wells (Pump-and-treatment remedy)
[~1 Properly secured/locked ~ Functioning Q Routinely sampled
1 1 All required wells located Q Needs O&M
| | Good condition
- X n/A ¦ ¦ ¦
Remarks:
I). Monitored Natural Attenuation O Applicable [X] N/A
1. Monitoring Wells (Natural attenuation remedy)
~ Properly secured/locked Q Functioning Q Routinely sampled
1 1 All required wells located |~] Needs O&M 1 1
d) Good condition
N/A
Remarks:
X. OTHER REMEDIES
180
-------
If there are remedies applied at the site that are not covered above, attach an inspection sheet describing
the physical nature and condition of any facility associated with the remedy. An example would be soil
vapor extraction.
OU1
The GUI ROD described three remedy elements; (1) Plug abandoned wells completed in the Roubidoux
aquifer, (2) construct surface water diversion and diking structures around three major inflow areas to
prevent surface water inflow into the abandoned mines, and (3) implement a surface water and
groundwater monitoring program to assess the Roubidoux aquifer. The 01J1 remedy included construction
of three surface water diversion structures and channel improvements to route surface water flow around
collapse features. Two such features are located in Treece, Kansas, Cherokee County Superfund Site (EPA
Region 7). The other is located in Oklahoma near the Douthat Bridge on E40 Road. At the Douthat Bridge
Site, the Remedy included building diversion structures for surface water and ..plugging abandoned wells
completed in the Roubidoux. The diversion dike prevents Lytle Creek from entering nearby subsidences
and the channel re-routes Lytle Creek to an upper reach of Tar Creek. The Roubidoux Groundwater
Monitoring Program has sampled approximately 13 wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and the
results of which are documented in After Action Monitoring Reports (2010-2013).
OU2
The OU2 ROD addresses soils in residential yards and high activity areas (HAAs) contaminated with,
lead. Contaminated soils from residential yards and HAAs were deposited at two repositories
OU4 • ¦ -
The OU4 remedy addresses the chat piles, chat bases, tailings ponds, in-stream and near-stream chat, rural
residences not addressed under OU2, smelter wastes, and transition zone soils near source materials and
smelter wastes. The remedial action is planned to occur over the next 30 years. In addition, LICRAT and
TRA have voluntarily bought out impacted residents of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville, OK, and Treece,
KS. The goal of the program is to remove people from the site and thereby reduce the risk from .exposure
to site-related contaminants.
XI. OVERALL OBSERVATIONS
A. Implementation of the Remedy
Describe issues and observations relating to whether the remedy is effective and functioning as designed. Begin with a
brief statement of what the remedy is to accomplish (i.e., to contain contaminant plume, minimize infiltration and gas
emission, etc.).
181
-------
-QUI . ¦ "
The 0U1 ROD described three remedy elements; (1) Plug abandoned wells completed in the
Roubidoux aquifer, (2) construct surface water diversion and diking structures around three major
inflow areas to prevent surface water inflow into the abandoned mines,.and (3) implement a surface
water and groundwater monitoring program to. assess,the Roubidoux aquifer. The Douthai Bridge
Site was visited during the Site Inspection. The stream channel improvements that divert Lytle Creek
to an upper reach of Tar Creek appeared to be functioning as designed. There were no signs that the
stream was eroding the. channel. Rip-rap was present along the cut-banks of the channel. The dike
was in good condition and there was no evidence of erosion, slides, burrows, or sloughing, Five
wells (Tulsa Mine, Powerhouse well, Quapavv #5, Quapaw #2, and Picher #5) that enter the
Roubidoux aquifer were visited during the Site Inspection. Tulsa Mine and Powerhouse well are
scheduled to be plugged in January 2015. Plugging these wells is imperative to protect the
Roubidoux aquifer from Boone aquifer contamination. The three additional wells are municipal
water supply wells. After action monitoring documents that Quapaw #5 exceeds indicator parameter
criteria for determining impacted wells. Quapaw #2 is a backup well for Quapaw and while it does
not exceed MCLs it has shown historical exceedances of indicator parameters and has a connection
to the Roubidoux. ODEQ would like to plug these two wells sometime in the future, but clearly
would have to get approval from the City of Quapaw. The Roubidoux Groundwater Monitoring
Program has sampled approximately 13 wells completed in the Roubidoux aquifer and the results of
which are documented in After Action Monitoring Reports (2010-2013).
OU2
The OU2 ROD addresses soils in residential yards and high activity areas (HAAs) contaminated
with lead. Contaminated soils from residential yards and HAAs were deposited at two repositories.
Both OU2 repositories were secured by a locked gate and barbed wire fence. Although the Site •
Inspection occurred during winter, it was apparent that the repositories are well vegetated.
Remediation of residential yards for OU2 is completed in the towns of Afton, Cardin, Commerce,
Fairland, Miami, Narcissa, North Miami, Peoria, Picher, Quapaw, and Wyandotte. Drive-by
inspections of remediated properties were conducted in Quapaw, Commerce, and Miami.
Remediated properties included yards, driveways, and alleyways. Yards that were inspected
appeared to be in good condition and had vegetation. Driveways and alleyways that were inspected
also appeared in good condition and were easily identified from the presence of fresh limestone.
Existing data on blood lead levels in children at the site have demonstrated that the OU2 remediation
has been effective.
OU4
The OU4 ROD addresses source materials, smelter wastes, rural residential yard contamination,
transition zone soil contamination, and contamination in water drawn from rural residential wells.
The voluntary buyout being conducted under GU4 was completed in 2011. Residents of Picher,
Cardin and Hoekerville. OK and Treeee, KS were relocated through the LICRAT and TRA
programs. The final house demolition from the LICRAT buyout was completed in ,2014. Source .
material from rural residential yard cleanups were placed in the 0114 repository located on E 40 Rd,,
The OU4 repository, was visited, drnng the site ins.pection, .The Q.U4 iepositoiy^was:.beMnd a locked . 1
gate and fence. Chat washing/sale operations (Sooner.Pile and.Atlas Pile), were, visited during the
site inspection. Several distal properties were visited during the site inspection..Remedial action was
182
-------
occurring during the site inspection at distal 8 (Catholic 40) and distal 6A, During the site
inspection, source material was still being hauled from distal 6A to a subsidence on 605 Rd. Distal 8
was being seeded during the site inspection. Distal 6 (CP 104), Distal 7 North, and Distal 1 North
were visited. Distal 6 and Distal 1 North had good vegetative growth present. However, Distal 7
North had'sparse vegetation and according tothe Quapaw Tribe source material was left near the
stream that runs through the property. The 605 subsidence that is acting as the repository for Distal
6A and Distal 8 were visited during the site inspection. At the time of the inspection, 72,000 tons
had been placed into the repository, The county owned Hockerville subsidence was visited and has
the potential of for accepting source material from other distal properties. A former subsidence filled
with construction and demolition waste was visited. This repository had obvious cap settling and it
was clear that ATV's had been driving over the repository cap. Additional soil needs to be placed on
the settling cap.
B. Adequacy of O&M
QUI
The only O&M procedures involve inspections and maintenance of the diversion dikes at Douthat
Bridge. O&M at this location is conducted by the ODEQ and are documented in an O&M Report. Based
on the Site Inspection and recent O&M inspection, the O&M at the Admiralty site is'adequate.
Groundwater monitoring is being conducted as pail of the Long-Term Monitoring program. This
monitoring is related to the protection of the drinking water supply at the site. Monitoring of the
groundwater used as the primary drinking water supply at the site shows no exceedances of primary .
drinking water standards (health-based standards). Exceedances of secondary (non-health based)
standards do occur in some wells.
OU2
Yards, driveways, alleyways, and HAAs where remedial activities have taken place all appear to be in
good condition and are well maintained. Approximately 19 properties may still need to be assessed. EPA
has transferred the site lead of this remedial action to ODEQ.
OU4
Remedy is on-going. O&M is not applicable at this point.
C, Early Indicators of Potential Remedy Failure
It is imperative that the Roubidoux aquifer remain protected from the Boone aquifer. To continue these
efforts additional wells may need plugging. ODEQ should work to continue to identify well and mine
shafts that may allow connection between the Boone and Roubidoux aquifers. Those that are identified
need to be plugged. :
D, Opportunities jfor O'ptimization
Opportunities for optimization.have been outlined in the OU4 Optimization Report.
183
-------
INSPECTION TEAM ROSTER
Name
Organization
Title
Brian Stanila
ODEQ
Environmental Programs Specialist
David Gates
ODEQ
Professional Engineer/Project
Manager
Amy Brittain
ODEQ
Environmental Programs Manager
Rafael Casanova
EPA
Remedial Project Manager
184
-------
-------
Appendix F: Site Inspection Photographs
Photo 1: Mayer Ranch Passive Treatment System (MRPTS) Oxidation Pond
Photo 2: MRPTS Outflow into Oxidation Pond
185
-------
Photo 3: MRPTS Surface Flow Wetland Pond
Photo 4: MRPTS Wind- and Solar-powered Machinery
186
-------
Photo 5: MRPTS Re-aeration Pond
Photo 6: MRPTS Horizontal-flow Limestone Bed
187
-------
1
Photo 7: MRPTS Polishing Basin
188
-------
Photo 9: Southeast Commerce Soil Remediation Project
Photo 10: Vegetative Cover on South Repository; Central Mill Repository in Background
189
-------
Photo 11: Entrance to Central Mill Repository (photo taken from top of repository)
Photo 12: Roads on Central Mill Repository
190
-------
Photo 13: Slope on North Side of Central Mill Repository
Photo 14: Collapsed Rolled Silt Fence on Northern Side of Central Mill Repository
191
-------
192
-------
Photo 17: Erosion of Northeastern Side of Central Mill Repository
Photo 18: Roubidoux Monitoring Well Picher #5
193
-------
Photo 19: Location of Filled Mine Shaft at Admiralty Mine Site
Photo 20: Portion of Diversion and Dike Structures at Admiralty Mine Site
194
-------
Photo 21: Rip-rap of Diversion Channel at Admiralty Mine Site
Photo 22: Diversion Channel at Admiralty Mine Site
195
-------
Photo 23: Confluence of Diversion Channel and Tar Creek
Photo 24: Chat in Tar Creek
196
------- |